Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Sayre]

Noah's flood is one of those biblical stories that made atheism appeal to me.

Uh what?

Many christians reject the flood all together.

All it should have done is make you reject fundamental Christianity. But why is the lack of fundamentalism equal to atheism?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Uh what?

Many christians reject the flood all together.

All it should have done is make you reject fundamental Christianity. But why is the lack of fundamentalism equal to atheism?

It was only one of the reasons, not the only reason.

 

[Sayre]

It was only one of the reasons, not the only reason.

But how does it give atheism positive appeal?

 

[anyathesword]

I think you're missing the point here Anya. The point is that the fossil record does not line up with the biblical account of creation. Cows are an example. The same issue exists with whales, dolphin, marine reptiles etc not showing up in the Devonian with the fish. In fact the bible explicitly states the birds were created with the fish before the land animals. Yet they appear higher in the record than land animals. You see the problem?

Well I started some research and apparently they found another fossil bird called the protoavis that is 75 million years before the other bird fossil that starts with an A (the dinosaur bird). They say this bird is closer to our modern birds and is 75 MILLION years older than the dinosaur bird!!!

Thats just an example of the changing theories, hypothesis, of evolution. They argue about this find and can't figure out who the ancestor of birds is, which ancestor DO they have, etc. It's just a huge mess!!

Either way the theory of evolution in fact does NOT follow the scientific method AND it plays along the lines of MYTH AND is becoming more like a religion!! I will do another thread on this...

I do not think the fossil record is clear do to the Flood and earthquakes, and other disasters.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But how does it give atheism positive appeal?

If one part of the bible is blatantly ridiculous, why can't other parts be off?

 

[anyathesword]

I think you're missing the point here Anya. The point is that the fossil record does not line up with the biblical account of creation. Cows are an example. The same issue exists with whales, dolphin, marine reptiles etc not showing up in the Devonian with the fish. In fact the bible explicitly states the birds were created with the fish before the land animals. Yet they appear higher in the record than land animals. You see the problem?

Well, what can you say about this?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)

He claimed that the gaps were due to “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past. One reason for this at the time was the still very limited knowledge of the global fossil record. Darwin expected more intermediate forms to be found as research continued.

The fossil record is the cause of ongoing debate between evolutionists. On one side geneticists and theoreticians stand for Darwinian “gradualism.” They continue to claim that the lack of intermediate forms is due to the rarity of fossilisation and the imperfection of the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record is something which needs to be explained away – it is not good evidence for Darwinian evolution.
The Fossil Record

 

[Sayre]

If one part of the bible is blatantly ridiculous, why can't other parts be off?

Yes, that is possible.

But there is a distinct difference between saying "a literal reading of the bible describes a God that is unbelievable" and "there are no god/s" or "I have belief in no god/s".

For one, the God described by a literal reading of the bible is only one possible instance of a god/s. There are others, for example, the god of Jainism. Or even a bare minimal deist God. The position of atheism requires the lack of belief in ALL god/s, not just the "literal bible" God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, that is possible.

But there is a distinct difference between saying "a literal reading of the bible describes a God that is unbelievable" and "there are no god/s" or "I have belief in no god/s".

For one, the God described by a literal reading of the bible is only one possible instance of a god/s. There are others, for example, the god of Jainism. Or even a bare minimal deist God. The position of atheism requires the lack of belief in ALL god/s, not just the "literal bible" God.

However, when the only evidence you have to go on that explicitly states a god is the bible, the fact that most of it completely contradicts reality doesn't really inspire much faith.

 

[mzungu]

This is the year 2014 and yet we still have people believing in mythology! All I can say is:

 

[anyathesword]

I think you're missing the point here Anya. The point is that the fossil record does not line up with the biblical account of creation. Cows are an example. The same issue exists with whales, dolphin, marine reptiles etc not showing up in the Devonian with the fish. In fact the bible explicitly states the birds were created with the fish before the land animals. Yet they appear higher in the record than land animals. You see the problem?

So rather than being straightforward evidence for evolution, the fossil record is the subject of a great deal of scientific controversy.
Science Lesson Plans

In conclusion, the fossil record is a very bad indicator of the past!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[anyathesword]

However, when the only evidence you have to go on that explicitly states a god is the bible, the fact that most of it completely contradicts reality doesn't really inspire much faith.

What does the Bible contradict?

 

[anyathesword]

This is the year 2014 and yet we still have people believing in mythology! All I can say is:

What is a myth?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What does the Bible contradict?

Evolution (which you don't believe is true) in several ways,

Logic (god is presented to be both completely good but also capable of doing anything, which includes evil acts, thus this cannot logically work) (the devil would have no motivation to even attempt to defy an all powerful being if he had no hope of winning ) (god loves us all, but, should what we believe matter, would allow the majority of us to burn, since no religion is followed by even closer to half of the world population) (the earth definitely orbits around the dun, not the other way around)

I could give more, but all you are going to do is attempt to argue them rather than respect my atheist views.

 

[Sayre]

However, when the only evidence you have to go on that explicitly states a god is the bible, the fact that most of it completely contradicts reality doesn't really inspire much faith.

A god is the bible? What is this whacked out fundamentalism you are preaching?

Sarah, not all Christians believe the strawman of fundamentalism. And rejecting fundamentalism is not the same as embracing atheism. For example, I don't believe that "god is the bible".

In short, I really reject the notion that the only evidence we have to go on is what you have stated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A god is the bible? What is this whacked out fundamentalism you are preaching?

Sarah, not all Christians believe the strawman of fundamentalism. And rejecting fundamentalism is not the same as embracing atheism. For example, I don't believe that "god is the bible".

In short, I really reject the notion that the only evidence we have to go on is what you have stated.

I am aware that plenty of Christians don't follow the bible word for word. However, to pick and choose which parts to believe and which to discard is not for me. I am working on the "all or none" principle when it comes to spirituality.

 

[Sayre]

Evolution (which you don't believe is true) in several ways,

Logic (god is presented to be both completely good but also capable of doing anything, which includes evil acts, thus this cannot logically work) (the devil would have no motivation to even attempt to defy an all powerful being if he had no hope of winning ) (god loves us all, but, should what we believe matter, would allow the majority of us to burn, since no religion is followed by even closer to half of the world population) (the earth definitely orbits around the dun, not the other way around)

I could give more, but all you are going to do is attempt to argue them rather than respect my atheist views.

There are some valid reasons to be an atheist, and I have previously argued that if reformed epistemology is correct, that it is rational and defensible for some people to be atheist.

But you still parody fundamentalism.

For example

1 - Evolution is a theory that describes scientific fact.
2 - You describe a form of God's ontology that most christian scholars don't follow (tri omni max). I follow an Anselmian ontology that doesn't suffer from the problem of God's maximal powers restricting each other.
3 - I don't believe in a punitive hell
4 - I don't believe in geocentrism. I think the bible uses observational language, and is cached within the scientific understanding of it's time (ANE cosmology - which was flat out wrong). But it doesn't attempt to teach science, so I have no idea why you would read the bible for science.

Showing you how your statements create a strawman is not disrespecting your atheist beliefs. It is just debate - and after all - that's what we are all here for.

 

[Sayre]

I am aware that plenty of Christians don't follow the bible word for word. However, to pick and choose which parts to believe and which to discard is not for me. I am working on the "all or none" principle when it comes to spirituality.

I think an all or none approach is a fallacy.

I can bundle these three statements together:

1+1=2
1+2=3
5+8=1

And you can choose to adopt an "all or none" literal approach, but that would be in error. Discovering the context of the bible and the intent of the authors often means moving away from modern fundamentalism (which is a very recent development). This isn't the same as not following the bible "word for word" but giving proper attention to context.

For example, if you discover, after studying context, that I am doing my mathematics on a clock face, and not on a linear number line, then all of a sudden the last equation makes sense.

Many people enjoy the philosophy of Jesus without all the spiritual crap. The sermon on the mount is a good example of this. Are they wrong? Didn't you claim a few days back that you still live by the ten commandments? Are you being a hypocrite?

 

[mzungu]

I am aware that plenty of Christians don't follow the bible word for word. However, to pick and choose which parts to believe and which to discard is not for me. I am working on the "all or none" principle when it comes to spirituality.

The Bible is basically a spiritual book and not a textbook. Fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally, use the Bible as a textbook while the rest use it only as a spiritual guide. It matters not what the contents are of a spiritual guide. What matters is the personal spiritual message one gets from this guide. Spiritual guides belong to the world of the supernatural and the unfalsifiable. They have no bearing on the physical world other than to console and guide a person's psyche.

Most humans seek consolation and inspiration in all manner of things and examples laid down by great people.

Fundamentalism has no place in a modern society and especially not in our schools. Creationism and such are a bane to any modern society when they trespass onto science.

 

[Sayre]

The Bible is basically a spiritual book and not a textbook. Fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally, use the Bible as a textbook while the rest use it only as a spiritual guide. It matters not what the contents are of a spiritual guide. What matters is the personal spiritual message one gets from this guide. Spiritual guides belong to the world of the supernatural and the unfalsifiable. They have no bearing on the physical world other than to console and guide a person's psyche.

Most humans seek consolation and inspiration in all manner of things and examples laid down by great people.

Fundamentalism has no place in a modern society and especially not in our schools. Creationism and such are a bane to any modern society when they trespass on science.

Completely agree.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Bible is basically a spiritual book and not a textbook. Fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally, use the Bible as a textbook while the rest use it only as a spiritual guide. It matters not what the contents are of a spiritual guide. What matters is the personal spiritual message one gets from this guide. Spiritual guides belong to the world of the supernatural and the unfalsifiable. They have no bearing on the physical world other than to console and guide a person's psyche.

Most humans seek consolation and inspiration in all manner of things and examples laid down by great people.

Fundamentalism has no place in a modern society and especially not in our schools. Creationism and such are a bane to any modern society when they trespass onto science.

And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.

Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities|Old and New Testament cities in the Bible | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Every archeological dig made only ends up verifying the accuracy of the Bible. It isn't the accuracy of the Bible that is in question, the only thing scientists doubt are it's spiritual matters.

The only difference is that the Bible says God created the heavens and the Earth and scientists say the Big Bang miraculously created the heavens and the earth. A theory proposed by a priest and accepted by science to meld the two together.

In reality you only have a problem with 10% of the Bible, the rest most archeologists know is accurate.

If you applied the dame unfair reasoning to the rest of historical literature that you attempt to apply to the Bible, we would be left with no historical writings at all.

Some videos you might want to watch before you make inaccurate statements attempting to dispute the Bibles Historical accuracy supported by archeology.

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology Part 1 - YouTube

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology Part 2 - YouTube

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology Part 3 - YouTube

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology Part 4 - YouTube

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology Part 5 - YouTube

Proving the Bible Through Archaeology Part 6 - YouTube

So it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is really in dispute, just the 10% that deals with spiritual matters. So even though the 90% has been shown to be 99% accurate, you would throw out the other 10% based on what?

Time after time it is modern historians that have proved to be in error when they make claims at odds with the Bible's recorded history. Yet people continue to this day to pass on inaccurate rubish they have decided is fact, simply because they want to believe the Bible is not reliable.