only atheists are allowed to post in this thread.

[Dave D]

Agreed. No matter what you tell theists, they will continue to believe. It does not matter what evidence you show them. They have their "faith."

Hell, many of them actually believe the earth is 6000 years old. There is a ton of evidence that says the earth is MUCH older. I believe close to 4 billion years old lol.

Yet, the bible says 6000 years old, therefore ALL of the science is wrong. Crazy. How can you be so brainwashed that you ignore the overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years old. Ive even met some die hard religious people who think its ridiculous that the earth is only 6000 years old.

I guess let them have their "toy."

MOS is still a cool guy and all.

There is no where in the bible where it dates the earth at 6000 years old. There are those who believe this based on several different scriptural  interpretations/diagnosis.  But it's not a biblical doctrine by any means.

Carbon dating, which I assume you use to judge the earth's age, isn't 100% accurate either.

I also know people (non Christian educated at prestigious academic universities) who don't believe that dinosaurs were real. Mankind tends to be very superstitious regardless of faith, race or culture.  We think we can explain everything,  until we can't then we find new information that makes the old obsolete.  This happens in church and in science.

[SF1900]

There is no where in the bible where it dates the earth at 6000 years old. There are those who believe this based on several different scriptural  interpretations/diagnosis.  But it's not a biblical doctrine by any means.

Carbon dating, which I assume you use to judge the earth's age, isn't 100% accurate either.

I also know people (non Christian educated at prestigious academic universities) who don't believe that dinosaurs were real. Mankind tends to be very superstitious regardless of faith, race or culture.  We think we can explain everything,  until we can't then we find new information that makes the old obsolete.  This happens in church and in science.

Well, you have to be dumb to think dinosaurs are not real. Some theists think that God placed the dinosaurs in the ground to test our faith. lol Religious nutters.

Well, the fact remains is that people still believe the earth is 6000 years old. Carbon dating is not 100% accurate, but the dating tools we do use offer a close enough answer that the earth is WAY older than 6000 years old.

[Necrosis]

Logic itself is transcendent and grounded in the nature of God.  Whether or not our minds exist logical absolutes hold true.  Logical absolutes are not contingent upon naturalism, humanity, space or time.  Logic is a process of our brains, but the logical absolutes that ground it are not.

Are you absolutely sure these absolutes hold true? what evidence is their that logic is transcendent? Our minds exist and are simply a process of the brain not a thing as you are framing. The mind is a process of a thing.. ie the brain insofar as migration is a process of a thing birds, you can't dissect the birds to find migration or measure in in a tangible way. The brain also creates logic, reality is not logical, in fact it's very counterintuitive at it's base (quantum mechanics, string theory), you are a fish admiring the way the water fits perfectly into the pond.

To preserve the record written across approx 1500 years by many authors in 66 different books that work together cohesively.  The bible was written in Hebrew which is a derivative of ancient chaldean, Aramaic which is a sister language of Arabic and Koine Greek.   All are dead languages and are unchanged to this day.   With our technology today and constantly evolving language we can distort, fabricate and manipulate virtually every common media known to man today.   That’s why the ancient greek manuscripts of the NT and the ancient manuscripts for the OT (ex: Septuagint) are so important.   We have the fields of linguistics and textual criticism devoted to understanding and preserving the words in the their purest, correct forms today.  

Ok so preserve the book and language no need to treat it more special then an artifact. The languages are dead for a reason, everything evolves man, we don't know the answers but I can assure you we are closer to it then the men who wrote that book.

The fact that this “bronze age sheepherder” book is difficult to falsify is telling to me.    Although, the term “falsification” is typically aligned with the scientific methods of naturalism.  And we’re talking about a book of historical and theological materials that discusses the supernatural God……a mix of different worldviews there.   Can’t bottle God in a test tube or beaker.  He wouldn’t be God if we could.

The book is not difficult to falsify if you are referring to contradictions, I was talking about the ideas, the actual god part.
 
Today we are left with something more precious than every person in the OT and most in the NT never had.   That’s the actual indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit within believers today.   This personal revelation of God is something OT Israelites, Pharisees and Sadducces of the Sanhedrin and most NT figures (aside from Christ’s apostles) never experienced.   Even with Christ on earth as the incarnate son of God people still refused to believe his miracles and teachings.  They occurred before throngs  and many simply denied them.  Why would today be any different?   Especially with all of the technology we have today that can manipulate and replicate so many genuine things into something seemingly dishonest.

Christ was crucified and rose and only after he appeared to his apostle Thomas did Thomas belief despite the word from his constituents.  Although, when the Holy Spirit filled these men and women at Pentecost did they go forward preaching the gospel at a fevered pace and willing gave up their lives in the process.  

As soon as you put the word “needed” with God the statement was incorrect.  God needs for nothing.  The “mulligan” (as you put it) was because of the error of people, not God.  God brought a reprobate world into judgment.   Not a happy world of charity workers and Pinterest loving soccer moms….a reprobate world.   A world full of vile, evil, depraved people committing the worst acts imaginable to each other.  

I've never understood why people today are so sympathetic to the reprobate folks in scripture   When we see examples of depraved people today most folks want them dealt with swiftly and permanently.  Most want them immediately hospitalized, jailed, executed or all of the above.....and this is only a tiny fraction of people.....not the entire world.

People have very hard hearts.  Shows you that the even the best possible proof is rejected even when it’s provided right in front of people repeatedly.   Why is it people would respond differently today?

Ok, so he has foreknowledge of events.  Doesn’t mean his will for our lives is pre-executed thereby negating our choices….only Calvinists belief that way.  

He didn’t sacrifice himself for himself…..he did so for you and me.   The OT Israelites couldn’t meet God’s standards despite their best efforts and God’s provision.   Everything in the bible points to people’s need for Jesus Christ.  A perfect, divine sacrifice was required on our behalf so that we could be made righteous and come into fellowship with God.  

This only appears the case for those that remain steeped in their sin.   For those redeemed by God this “loophole” notion simply isn’t there.   Believers in Christ have turned completely from their sin and desire to live without it in our lives….that’s the goal.  

See above.  Makes perfect sense if you allow for the God’s divine, righteous, holy nature to be exactly what it is.   We could traverse the entire universe and that distance still wouldn’t close the gap between us and God…..only Jesus Christ can bridge that for us.  That’s why he came.

One of the worst acts of torture conceived of and known by man at that time was undertaken by a man who was fully without blame and unworthy of such a penalty, but did so willingly on our behalf and that is not a sacrifice?  In fact, the modern word "excruciating" is rooted in the Latin word "excruciare" that sources from the Latin "cruciare" which means "to crucify".  The Romans were highly proficient in torture and death and adopted and perfected the ancient practice of crucifixion from Persia (if I remember correctly). Jesus Christ rose in death to show that once and for all he is God.    He did all of this so that we could be aligned with the infinite, holy, righteous God.

The first book is Genesis, the second is Exodus.   There are 66 inspired books in the bible written over 1500 years.     Was that what you meant?  Or did you mean testaments…as in the new and old?   Where did God sound like a moron?

[Necrosis]

Total fail, will fully respond when my penor is flaccid.

[Dave D]

Well, you have to be dumb to think dinosaurs are not real. Some theists think that God placed the dinosaurs in the ground to test our faith. lol Religious nutters.

Well, the fact remains is that people still believe the earth is 6000 years old. Carbon dating is not 100% accurate, but the dating tools we do use offer a close enough answer that the earth is WAY older than 6000 years old.

I'm not disputing you that people do believe ridiculous dumb things, hence the  people who dont believe in dinosaurs.

The vast majority of the population consists of very simple minded people.  It was only a generation ago that an Orson Wells story on the radio caused a panic. 16 years ago we were bombarded with Y2K.

Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand,  whether we hide behind God or science.  Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't,  but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.

We try to rationalize everything we don't understand, until we can find an answer that can satisfy our question.

[Howard]

I'm not disputing you that people do believe ridiculous dumb things, hence the  people who dont believe in dinosaurs.

The vast majority of the population consists of very simple minded people.  It was only a generation ago that an Orson Wells story on the radio caused a panic. 16 years ago we were bombarded with Y2K.

Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand,  whether we hide behind God or science.  Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't,  but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.

We try to rationalize everything we don't understand, until we can find an answer that can satisfy our question.

The world is going to end Dec 21, 2012, according those who study the Mayan Calendar.
Bank on it! 

FYI, most of Hawkin's theories on black holes have been proven along with the existence of the Higgs- Bosen aka " God particle".

[avxo]

I'm not disputing you that people do believe ridiculous dumb things, hence the  people who dont believe in dinosaurs.

The vast majority of the population consists of very simple minded people.  It was only a generation ago that an Orson Wells story on the radio caused a panic. 16 years ago we were bombarded with Y2K.

Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand,  whether we hide behind God or science.  Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't,  but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.

We try to rationalize everything we don't understand, until we can find an answer that can satisfy our question.

The difference is that Hawking is very open about the fact that what he's proposing is a theory based on observed evidence and previous theories. That theory allows us to make testable predictions, which will either increase or decrease our confidence in the theory. He knows full that the theory is only good as long as it fits observed facts and if it doesn't, he's open to amending or modifying it in an effort to explain those new observations.

And this - one would hope - applies not just to Hawking, but more generally to scientists and people in general.

Contrast this people who view the Bible as inerrant truth - regardless of whether they claim it should be interpreted literally or not. They don't have a theory. What they have a belief which they refuse to critically examine. While they're mostly insulated from facts since their beliefs deal with the supernatural, even when they venture into the natural ("it's a miracle!"), they stick by their belief and refuse to reconsider or reevaluate their faith.

It's offensive to suggest that explaining the world around us via science is equivalent to explaining the word around us via God. It's offensive because one operates on the premise that we exist in a rational universe and that we are capable of understanding and explaining the things we observe, whereas the other operates on the premise that we live in a magical universe, ruled by supernatural forces that are totally outside understanding.

[Dave D]

The difference is that Hawking is very open about the fact that what he's proposing is a theory based on observed evidence and previous theories. That theory allows us to make testable predictions, which will either increase or decrease our confidence in the theory. He knows full that the theory is only good as long as it fits observed facts and if it doesn't, he's open to amending or modifying it in an effort to explain those new observations.

And this - one would hope - applies not just to Hawking, but more generally to scientists and people in general.

Contrast this people who view the Bible as inerrant truth - regardless of whether they claim it should be interpreted literally or not. They don't have a theory. What they have a belief which they refuse to critically examine. While they're mostly insulated from facts since their beliefs deal with the supernatural, even when they venture into the natural ("it's a miracle!"), they stick by their belief and refuse to reconsider or reevaluate their faith.

It's offensive to suggest that explaining the world around us via science is equivalent to explaining the word around us via God. It's offensive because one operates on the premise that we exist in a rational universe and that we are capable of understanding and explaining the things we observe, whereas the other operates on the premise that we live in a magical universe, ruled by supernatural forces that are totally outside understanding.

So you're saying that everyone who believes in God is opposed to science? I know this isn't what you're saying but when you use blanket statements about "bible believers" you sound just as ignorant as those who fight science.  If you read my other posts I agreed that thoughts and ideas are evolving.

I think, and I could be wrong, your biggest issue is with those simple minded who refuse to be open? I think we agree on alot.
My point was we are always trying to understand things (ideas, concepts, theories) better and those things we don't understand we develop ideas until we do.

If you don't believe in God that's fine, you're an intelligent person and that's your right, I don't have a problem with it. There are many people that do believe in God but they've become superstitious with Him and His ways. I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive,  I believe they coexist peacefully.

All that aside I can also understand why people have a problem with the religious lunatics, hate mongers, etc.... I personally wish for those who believe in a biblical doctrine of morals, self control, temperance,  loving others, all in the name of service to God.

Regardless there are events in life that can't be explained satisfactorily (muggings, rape, kidnapping,  murders, accidents). Life happens and random chance occurs.

[Dave D]

The world is going to end Dec 21, 2012, according those who study the Mayan Calendar.
Bank on it! 

FYI, most of Hawkin's theories on black holes have been proven along with the existence of the Higgs- Bosen aka " God particle".

Howard I'm sure black holes are more your field of expertise then mine.

Actually I'm serious with that,  I thought "Hawkins Radiation" was still an unproven theory as is "string theory" which is more probable . I know there was a noble peace prize handed out for  Higgs Bosen but I thought there were still theories in regards to it unproven. Nonetheless most of it is above my head.

My point was despite being a genius Hawkins went against the grain with some of his black hole theories, and has been proven right many times.

The Bible is a book that has been torn apart for centuries yet it has been proven factually/historically correct. There ideas and concepts that are hard to comprehend and accept, and that's fine. I think it's important for people to challenge their faith and beliefs,  rather then blindly accept someone else's faith and ideas, this should be applied in all walks of life.

I asked Croatch why he didn't believe in (a) God in a thread his answer was a good one,  there were events in the bible that were hard for him to believe as a 30 year old adult. I understand his point.

I also asked SF1900 the same question and his (and if I'm wrong you can correct me) response was you'd have to be gullible to believe in something you don't have complete understanding of. And again I understand his point.

Life has many shades of grey.

[Howard]

Howard I'm sure black holes are more your field of expertise then mine.

Actually I'm serious with that,  I thought "Hawkins Radiation" was still an unproven theory as is "string theory" which is more probable . I know there was a noble peace prize handed out for  Higgs Bosen but I thought there were still theories in regards to it unproven. Nonetheless most of it is above my head.

My point was despite being a genius Hawkins went against the grain with some of his black hole theories, and has been proven right many times.

The Bible is a book that has been torn apart for centuries yet it has been proven factually/historically correct. There ideas and concepts that are hard to comprehend and accept, and that's fine. I think it's important for people to challenge their faith and beliefs,  rather then blindly accept someone else's faith and ideas, this should be applied in all walks of life.

I asked Croatch why he didn't believe in (a) God in a thread his answer was a good one,  there were events in the bible that were hard for him to believe as a 30 year old adult. I understand his point.

I also asked SF1900 the same question and his (and if I'm wrong you can correct me) response was you'd have to be gullible to believe in something you don't have complete understanding of. And again I understand his point.

Life has many shades of grey.

String theory peaked with 11 different dimensions, but I think it's literal application is junk science.
The most dedicated string theorist try to force fit the mathematical equations with random observations.
The holy grail is to combine quantum theory with the universal effects of gravity.
Alas, a clear unified field theory remains light years away ( pun intended)
The Hawking radiation may be nothing more then the intense gravity near the event horizon ,inverting light waves?

I know I have bias with physics explaining the universe, but it does a better job then philosophy.
I'm convinced there is a GOD, but his laws are the ones that govern the forces of our universe.

It amazes me when some bible beater will say it's a miracle if they suddenly find their lost car keys.
BUT, then act like the force of gravity is no big deal. These small minded people want to make GOD a micro manager of trivial things only important in their life.
For me, looking at the infinite number of stars , trillions of miles from me on a clear night is sufficient for me to believe in GOD. It's both humbling and awe inspiring.

FYI, ol' Issac Newton was a devout man of faith. He was a protestant minister and prof at Cambridge.
He said, he wanted to learn about the laws that govern our universe , so he could understand GOD the father , without a filter.

Perhaps, the one thing that troubles me most with "the bible" is that nothing new can be added.
Hmmm, you mean to tell me, that in the past 2000 yrs nothing significant within humanity has occurred? wtf.

[avxo]

So you're saying that everyone who believes in God is opposed to science?

No. You wrote:

Since the beginning of mankind's history we've tried to explain things we don't understand,  whether we hide behind God or science.  Hawkins has an interesting theory on black holes, some agree some don't,  but until it's proven one way or another we really don't know much more then what we've theorized. Hawkins eventually could be proven completely wrong (or right) but it wouldn't diminish his intelligence.

You equated faith-based beliefs to evidence-based hypotheses. That is a joke; science is concerned with the natural, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural - the two aren't even dealing in the same subject matter. Supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless: seeing lightning in the sky and saying "Zeus is throwing thunders" may be an attempt to "explain" lightning, but how is that an explanation?

You also suggest that Hawkins theory can be proven, but that's not quite how scientific theories work. You can only grow more confident that a paricular theory accurately describes something; you can't prove it. That's because any new evidence that agrees with the theory's predictions strengthens it - even to the point that we consider it a law (e.g. the law of gravitation) - but future evidence that will invalidate it can't be completely ruled out.

If you don't believe in God that's fine, you're an intelligent person and that's your right, I don't have a problem with it. There are many people that do believe in God but they've become superstitious with Him and His ways. I don't think God and science are mutually exclusive,  I believe they coexist peacefully.

I agree that they can peacefully co-exist. But only if believers realize that they have different domains: religion deals with the supernatural and not the natural.

Regardless there are events in life that can't be explained satisfactorily (muggings, rape, kidnapping,  murders, accidents). Life happens and random chance occurs.

I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be explained satisfactorily" here.

[polychronopolous]

No. You wrote:

You equated faith-based beliefs to evidence-based hypotheses. That is a joke; science is concerned with the natural, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural - the two aren't even dealing in the same subject matter. Supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless: seeing lightning in the sky and saying "Zeus is throwing thunders" may be an attempt to "explain" lightning, but how is that an explanation?

You also suggest that Hawkins theory can be proven, but that's not quite how scientific theories work. You can only grow more confident that a paricular theory accurately describes something; you can't prove it. That's because any new evidence that agrees with the theory's predictions strengthens it - even to the point that we consider it a law (e.g. the law of gravitation) - but future evidence that will invalidate it can't be completely ruled out.


I agree that they can peacefully co-exist. But only if believers realize that they have different domains: religion deals with the supernatural and not the natural.


I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be explained satisfactorily" here.

[avxo]

The Bible is a book that has been torn apart for centuries yet it has been proven factually/historically correct.

Plenty of books are historically correct - many much more than the Bible. And as to being "proven factually correct" I guess that would very much depend on your definition of "factually." Forgive me for finding it hard to accept as fact that it rained for forty days and forty nights resulting in the highest mountain in the world being under water while a (multi-)centenarian and his troupe of animals floated blissfully on a home-built wooden boat before the waters receded and they all went back to doing their thing.

[SF1900]

Plenty of books are historically correct - many much more than the Bible. And as to being "proven factually correct" I guess that would very much depend on your definition of "factually." Forgive me for finding it hard to accept as fact that it rained for forty days and forty nights resulting in the highest mountain in the world being under water while a (multi-)centenarian and his troupe of animals floated blissfully on a home-built wooden boat before the waters receded and they all went back to doing their thing.

Yes, perhaps DaveD can explain how he knows that Noahs Ark, Jesus curing the blind, and walking on water are factually correct?

[Dave D]

Plenty of books are historically correct - many much more than the Bible. And as to being "proven factually correct" I guess that would very much depend on your definition of "factually." Forgive me for finding it hard to accept as fact that it rained for forty days and forty nights resulting in the highest mountain in the world being under water while a (multi-)centenarian and his troupe of animals floated blissfully on a home-built wooden boat before the waters receded and they all went back to doing their thing.

That's fine I understand the skepticism,  this is an event I've had to decide if it's something I believe. I think you're putting a spin on a catastrophic event where  all of mankind is eliminated as being blissful. It sounds like you're at least familiar with the story, Noah, 500 as you pointed out, built an ark, via specific instructions from God to prepare for a flood, that may have taken up to 75 hears to complete and upon completion animals walked on two by two.

There are many questions unanswered through,  off the top of my head what happened to all the sea life? How did the fresh and salt water animals survive the influx of water? We can believe the polar ice caps can/are/will melt because of global warming and this will cause the earth to flood yet because the Bible account of a flood only talks about 40 nonstop days of rain than nothing else played a role in the flooding?

I can understand why someone wouldn't believe this, it's difficult to comprehend. I think with the "non believer" there is always the inferring of the stories of the bible being easy, happy ending fairytales, when the reality of the stories is that the are occurring with real people with real issues who had the same questions and issues with God we have now.

That said most believe an asteroid was what eliminated dinosaurs,  but we don't know that with 100% accuracy either, it goes without saying that something happened to eliminate them though.

We're not certain if we could replicate the Great Pyramid of Gaza with today's construction methods; I know many debate this some say we could build it better others argue we couldn't build it until we know it's complete layout, regardless no one has done and why would they. It's kind of a silly argument anyhow, as both sides think they're right but neither will likely to be able to prove the other wrong.

As I said it is fine if you don't want to believe in God, I'm aware I'm not going to convince you He is real and that's OK, just as you aren't going to convince, nor could you concretely prove, He isn't real.

I wish you no ill will and hope I don't come across as insulting.   I enjoy the facts you have and points you make, your critical thinking is refreshing.

[Howard]

...and on the 6th day, the Lord created Adam and Steve. Thus, the IFBB had sponsors to thrive and prosper .  Fact.

[tbombz]

Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism

There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.

www.creation.com


Here is a sample video:

 

[Howard]

Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism

There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.

www.creation.com


Here is a sample video:

 

There is quantitative proof that the earth is aprox 4.5 billion yrs old via radiometric dating.
One can actually measure this in a lab via radiation levels and half life times in ordinary rocks.
This is as clear and basic as gravity or seeing light waves , etc.

[Dave D]

Yes, perhaps DaveD can explain how he knows that Noahs Ark, Jesus curing the blind, and walking on water are factually correct?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

* that article mentions that Robert Ballard believe the world was covered in ice 12000 years ago, which isn't going to help your theory of a Bible that says the earth is  6000 years old. He also uses some new science method of carbon dating to validate his theories

I'm working on getting copies of Jesus's footprints off the water, in the meantime I've talked with the blind guys parents to verify if the son was really blind,  they said he can speak for himself.  I'm trying to find the proper medical documents to verify this....


This band of miscreant fishermen,  tax collectors and sheep herders really pulled together in a plot of epic proportions.


Again I get you don't believe in God, that fine I'm not going to convince you otherwise.  Jesus is a documented historical figure, He was crucified, His disciples are also documented as are their deaths. They are as real as Genghis Kahn. If you think the bible is factually incorrect fairy tales then so be it. Nothing in it is valid to you.

You do have great questions though.

[Dave D]

There is quantitative proof that the earth is aprox 4.5 billion yrs old via radiometric dating.
One can actually measure this in a lab via radiation levels and half life times in ordinary rocks.
This is as clear and basic as gravity or seeing light waves , etc.

Can you use 3 week old concrete as well?

[SF1900]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

* that article mentions that Robert Ballard believe the world was covered in ice 12000 years ago, which isn't going to help your theory of a Bible that says the earth is  6000 years old. He also uses some new science method of carbon dating to validate his theories

I'm working on getting copies of Jesus's footprints off the water, in the meantime I've talked with the blind guys parents to verify if the son was really blind,  they said he can speak for himself.  I'm trying to find the proper medical documents to verify this....


This band of miscreant fishermen,  tax collectors and sheep herders really pulled together in a plot of epic proportions.


Again I get you don't believe in God, that fine I'm not going to convince you otherwise.  Jessica is a documented historical figure, He was crucified, His disciples are also documented as are their deaths. They are as real as Genghis Kahn. If you think the bible is factually incorrect fairy tales then so be it. Nothing in it is valid to you.

You do have great questions though.

Great, there is still no real reason for me to believe anything in the bible is fact. You just dont get to point to ONE book and say, "Hey, the bible said its true, therefore its factually correct." Sorry, doesn't work that way. Until you can prove above, and beyond a reasonable doubt that events in the bible are factual, I will come to the conclusion that its all myths. I shouldn't believe otherwise.

Listen, the earth is billions of years old, no matter how much you and other theists want to believe its not. You're just wrong. The next thing youre going to tell me is that dinosaurs are fake, and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith.  

This is the idiocy of religion. You just can't debate with cuckoo religious people.

[Dave D]

Great, there is still no real reason for me to believe anything in the bible is fact. You just dont get to point to ONE book and say, "Hey, the bible said its true, therefore its factually correct." Sorry, doesn't work that way. Until you can prove above, and beyond a reasonable doubt that events in the bible are factual, I will come to the conclusion that its all myths. I shouldn't believe otherwise.

Listen, the earth is billions of years old, no matter how much you and other theists want to believe its not. You're just wrong. The next thing youre going to tell me is that dinosaurs are fake, and God put fossils in the ground to test our faith. 

This is the idiocy of religion.

Bro I never said the earth isn't billions of years old, you said the bible states it's 6000 years old. You are correct if you want to believe it's a book of myths. As I said I'm not going to persuade you with ancient non biblical texts from 2000 years ago that record Jesus of Nazareth existences.

I agree religion is a joke, it's designed to enslave people.


I'm way behind in my discussion with axvo.....

[Dave D]

No. You wrote:

You equated faith-based beliefs to evidence-based hypotheses. That is a joke; science is concerned with the natural, whereas religion is concerned with the supernatural - the two aren't even dealing in the same subject matter. Supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless: seeing lightning in the sky and saying "Zeus is throwing thunders" may be an attempt to "explain" lightning, but how is that an explanation?

You also suggest that Hawkins theory can be proven, but that's not quite how scientific theories work. You can only grow more confident that a paricular theory accurately describes something; you can't prove it. That's because any new evidence that agrees with the theory's predictions strengthens it - even to the point that we consider it a law (e.g. the law of gravitation) - but future evidence that will invalidate it can't be completely ruled out.


I agree that they can peacefully co-exist. But only if believers realize that they have different domains: religion deals with the supernatural and not the natural.


I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be explained satisfactorily" here.

Sorry, I understand your separation, and its an excellent point.

You said supernatural explanations of natural events are worthless.

 I agree, however my premise was that people try to explain things they don't understand.  If two people get hit by lightning and  one lives they justify it by saying God has a plan for their life while the other dies they say it's his time.

I think I misunderstood your point about those who hold faith based beliefs as evidenced based hypothesis, again excellent point.

My simple point was people have always tried to explain events they can't understand. As you have documented science attempts to prove and explain natural events whereas religion will use  God and the supernatural as well as superstition.

 I used the examples of crime and accidents to point out that random chance occurs, people use God so they can have peace in "justifying" things they don't understand.

[The Ugly]

We got Hawkins and Dawkins up here, but I think we mean Hawking.

Yep, certain.

[Howard]

Just in case one of you ladies and gentlemen is interested in the scientific side of Creationism

There is a wonderful website that you can visit, it is created by bible believing Christians with Master's and PHd's in the relevant fields of science.

www.creation.com


Here is a sample video:

 

Ok, it's fine to have an opinion, but to disprove the scientific evidence of radiometric dating requires:

1. 1st they need to show a flaw in the collection and/or analysis of the data collected in the current radiometric dating experiments.

2.  Next, they need to do experiments proving that the earth's matter is much younger.

The creationists love to have philosophical debates but offer no empirical data and experiments to support their side of the argument.