Spirituality
12 May 12
25 May 12
Originally posted by humyYou are right and I covered that in my post at the end.
I agree with much of that. I will try and take your advice.
However, I should point out that much of my insults to certain theists here are in response to their insults to atheists and, in particular, making out that atheism supports Nazism, which it clearly doesn't ( and most Nazis where theists and supported mainly by theists anyway ) . They will have to agr ...[text shortened]... n they persist in their insults, well, I would say “so you cannot take your own medicine then?”
Sometimes I go for being reasonable and respecttful but they do indeed push and push until anyone will eventually crack.
25 May 12
9 edits
Originally posted by finnegan
There is a logical error of course - or really, an error in the use of language. The claims use language in a way that is open to wide interpretations and misinterpretations. In common speech they are probably acceptable (not to be agreed with, just as propositions) but they will not survive scrutiny as presently expressed.
I do not quite see the role of , as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.
The whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.
There are 31 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. Would you give me two known scientific FACTS that render any one of those 31 verses definitely wrong ?
What science fact proves God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ? (v1)
What science fact proves that prior to some light shining the earth could not be under water with darkness everywhere? (v2)
What science fact proves a sudden influx of light could not pierce this darkness ? (v3)
Is there some known science discovery which makes verse 3 "totally and flatly" impossible to have happened ? You needn't worry about what God "said".
Verse 4 is a qualitative matter. We can ignore the "goodness" of the Light.
Is there some science fact that contradicts that there could it could be said "and there was evening and there was morning, one day." ? What is that science fact that contradicts Genesis 1:5?
Is it that the light is mentioned before the SUN ? What science FACT do you know about that proves no light could separate day from night before the sun (was "MADE" on Day # 4) - ASAH that is , not BARA for CREATE.
Could not the seer Moses observe in a vision that light was observed before the "light holders" of the fouth day were "MADE" - not "created" ?
I will not go through all the other verses. But you tell us two science FACTS generally known and accepted by scientists which render any passage of Genesis 1 scientifically "totally and flatly" wrong.
And if I come back and see no definite example of a "totally and flatly" contrary known FACT of science contradicting Genesis 1, then think about retracting this charge:
This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them
By the way, James Ussher's chronology attempting to pin-point the date and hour of the creation is not part of the Bible, in case you're confused.
25 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillThere are 31 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. Would you give me two known scientific FACTS that render any one of those 31 verses definitely wrong ?The whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.
There are 31 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. W ...[text shortened]... of the creation is [b]not part of the Bible, in case you're confused.[/b]
1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
25 May 12
Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]There are 31 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. Would you give me two known scientific FACTS that render any one of those 31 verses definitely wrong ?
1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.[/b]
1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
The phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.
The first point is interesting. However, I doubt that it rises above theory or speculation (albeit well reasoned according to current levels of knowledge) to be a known science FACT.
Originally posted by jaywillThe whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.
There are 31 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. W of the creation is [b]not part of the Bible, in case you're confused.[/b]
Creationists would agree with me about this. After all, they consider it important to argue about the scientific evidence and indeed take the risk of making their belief system (and presumably at some level their "faith" ) contingent on the outcome. The whole point of literalist readings of the Bible is the claim, which most Christians would reject, of its literal truth taking priority over all scientific evidence to the contrary. This is, as I said, very risky since the scientific evidence is totally and flatly against them.
I do not see my quote making a narrow reference to the truth or otherwise of Genesis. It refers to the way Creationists argue against Science and fail to make their case.
What science fact proves God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ? (v1)Not a factual statement about the material world.
What science fact proves that prior to some light shining the earth could not be under water with darkness everywhere? (v2)You have carefully provided a conditional statement for me to debate here. If there was no light, there would be darkness. That is banal. However, the scientific account of the way Earth and the planetary system generally was formed around our Sun is incompatible with the Genesis account.
What science fact proves a sudden influx of light could not pierce this darkness ? (v3)Our knowledge of the way stars are formed and the formation of the planetary system around our own star, the Sun.
Is there some science fact that contradicts that there could it could be said "and there was evening and there was morning, one day." ? What is that science fact that contradicts Genesis 1:5?
This is a banal, poetic statement. It hardly adds to our appreciation of the universe, does it?
May I emphasise that you are not required, here, to agree with the scientific account. Only to accept that an extremely hot planet, orbiting the Sun, was not only fully lit but also incapable of supporting oceans of water without them evaporating.
Personally, I consider Genesis to be a book of poetry and to make no factual claims whatever. So do most Christians. Your efforts to turn it into something else are not credible.
25 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillFact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
The phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.
The first point is interesting. However, I doubt that it rises above theory or speculation (albeit well reasoned according to current levels of knowledge) to be a known science FACT.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
—National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism
25 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillThe phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
The phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.
The first point is interesting. However, I doubt that it rises above theory or speculation (albeit well reasoned according to current levels of knowledge) to be a known science FACT.
Not it doesn't. But scripture tells us that 'all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered' to a depth of '15 cubits'. If all the mountains were submerged it stands to reason that all the land must be also.
25 May 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt is nice to see you standing up for the truth of the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
[b]The phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.
Not it doesn't. But scripture tells us that 'all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered' to a depth of '15 cubits'. If all the mountains were submerged it stands to reason that all the land must be also.[/b]
25 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillBy the way, the phrase "global flood" which you place in quotation marks does not appear in the post to which you are replying either. The word games played in your contributions would make a jesuit weep. You really have run dry in the face of argument, haven't you!1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
The phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.
The first point is interesting. However, I doubt that it rises above theory or speculation (albeit well reasoned according to current levels of knowledge) to be a known science FACT.
25 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNow you are disappointing me. And the Lord too, I would bet.
Bible and truth eh? Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.
You give the following as facts:
1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
These are not statements of fact, but of opinion and we all know opinion may be fact or fiction and is not science.
26 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsShow me the 'science' that says there was a world wide at the same time flood in the last 5000 years.
Now you are disappointing me. And the Lord too, I would bet.
You give the following as facts:
1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.
2. There has never been a global flood.
These are not statements of fact, but of opinion and we all know opinion may be fact or fiction and is not science.
26 May 12
I enjoyed Dawkins God Delusion for the same reason many atheists enjoyed it , you could laugh at the god squad . I just wonder wether Dawkin as a prof of the public understanding of science ,should write a laymens guide to the philosophy of science. Asking questions about the definitions , assumptions , meanings etc about the scientific method is more enlightening than showing up the inconsistencies in the Bible and Koran . Someone like Dawkin placing science up to critical examination by the general public in an accessible book (books on the philosophy of science tend to be expensive , technical and difficult to follow, finnegan mentions Popper ,alot of his stuff I find unreadable) would illustrate a fundamental principle of the scientific method , openess.