God Talk

[birdman]

Only evolution is a theory.The Bible is not a history book.The Bible is not accurate. It is filled with self-contradiction and scientific/historical falsehoods.

Yeah, its falsehoods, nothing but some good stories with morals.

The Bible asserts the world was made in seven days. Evolution makes that patently impossible.

Yes, it says seven days. However, as you said the bible is filled with scientific falsehoods, many christians do not take the bible litterally (the only groups i know that do are the catholics and the mormons). As such, 7 days is often accepted as _much_ longer than days that we have today.

(altho presumably because the spin of the earth is slowing, it used to spin much faster than today providing for much sorter days)

You cannot believe in the Bible and in evolution.

It indeed used to be this way. However, many christians are starting to belive that god used evolution during those "7 Days" to create man. Of course this is impossible to belive if you take the bible word for word.

I dont belive in the bible, or 99% of the stuff in the bible, just pointing this out. Very few christians take the bible litterally anymore.

 

[Terra]

Really? Except that you just said something meaningless, then said I'm out of my depth when I couldn't get the meaning.No, my logic is logic. Yours is logical fallacies.Only evolution is a theory.The Bible is not a history book.The Bible is not accurate. It is filled with self-contradiction and scientific/historical falsehoods.That's absolutely not true.Um, no. The Bible asserts the world was made in seven days. Evolution makes that patently impossible. Not to mention that you'd have to be completely intellectually dishonest to be making the claim that the Bible said anything even remotely similar to what you're claiming.

In Genesis 1, the first living things are plants. In Genesis 2, God makes man before there are any plants. In neither of them does the story approach anything even remotely close to the explanations we have about the early Earth.No.

There is no evidence that raises the probability of God's existence above zero.You cannot believe in the Bible and in evolution.Clearly you are, if you think there is any merit in calling the Bible a historical record. That statement in itself is laughable.There is no significance. This is as much a statement of scientific fact as "The stars are aligned well for Leo today. Take a chance at something new and unusual."

There's not much point in trying to expand a relationship of probability when participants can't even grasp what that means.

Throwing the Bible in the bin, & demanding that a theory is fact, pretty much says it all.

When theologists say "Forget evolution", & Evolutionists say "forget the bible" it is not a discussion, it's a pointless power struggle about who is right when neither have conclusive proof.

Free play wrote "You cannot believe in the Bible and in evolution."

That, my friend, is arrant ignorant nonsense.

 

[FreePlay]

There's not much point in trying to expand a relationship of probability when participants can't even grasp what that means.

Really? You made an empty statement about "evidential probability". Evidence either exists or it doesn't. If the probability of a certain piece of evidence existing is less than 100%, it isn't evidence.

Throwing the Bible in the bin, & demanding that a theory is fact, pretty much says it all.

There is no evidence that leads towards a rational decision to believe anything in the Bible. At all. And you're being disingenuous about theories. Theories incorporate facts. They are made of facts. They are the most rigorously-tested, well-thought-out explanations we have for things we observe in the universe. In science, there is nothing higher than a theory.

When theologists say "Forget evolution", & Evolutionists say "forget the bible" it is not a discussion, it's a pointless power struggle about who is right when neither have conclusive proof.

I say "forget the Bible" because there's no evidence that leads me to accept it, not because of preconceived beliefs. If there were evidence, I'd accept it. But there isn't.

Free play wrote "You cannot believe in the Bible and in evolution."

That, my friend, is arrant ignorant nonsense.

You clearly haven't thought this through. See below.

I disagree. if you look at the creation story as non literal, you can.

now, whether or not doing so is honest to your religion is another thing, but one CAN believe in both.

If you look at the creation story as non-literal, you are not believing in the Bible. You're believing your interpretation, which you have shaped to fit what you already believe. If you believe the Biblical story of creation, flat-out, you are believing things that directly contradict the theory of evolution (as well as the vast majority of biology, physics, and chemistry). You CANNOT accept both of them as factual without ignoring the massive cognitive dissonance. That's what I did for several years, until I gave up on it and accepted that they're incompatible.

Yes, it says seven days. However, as you said the bible is filled with scientific falsehoods, many christians do not take the bible litterally (the only groups i know that do are the catholics and the mormons). As such, 7 days is often accepted as _much_ longer than days that we have today.

Most people who believe this don't realize that the original language used for 'seven days' literally translates to seven 24-hour periods, though...

(altho presumably because the spin of the earth is slowing, it used to spin much faster than today providing for much sorter days)

It's not slowing down that quickly

Terra, you've made patently illogical and deceptive claims about what the Bible states, then gotten upset when I pointed them out to you. Why is that? Why do you hold onto things that cannot be true? I cannot fathom why you latch onto this book as if it's a history or science textbook. It says things that are absolutely false on their face! How can you BELIEVE it?

Example:

Evolution deduced this from scientific biological ascendacy, which also "proved" what the Bible asserted over 3000 years before science addressed creation in earnest.

You and I both know that what the Bible asserts is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from what science has shown. It's just stated in a vague enough fashion that you can interpret it to mean what you want it to.

and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

You expand this to mean that life began in the ocean. The Bible expands this to mean that the entire planet was covered in water, and a day later God made land. Oh, and that the first life was plants, on land.

That's what's so great about poetry. You can interpret it to mean whatever you want.

 

[Terra]

Bump:

No they don't, that quote is way to general to assert that the bible is describing a submerged earth.

This is like saying that Nostradamus predictions are correct cause after the event has happened cause his words can be twisted to fit in to events.

No mate, we're talking about probability.
What is significant is that there was a general discription of the planet in the beginning.
If we get bogged down with what words the author used & say "There was no mention of the earth being submerged" It would be the same as me saying "The absence of the mention of land says it was so"

According to the bible, God was about to create life & the principle species (us)were land animals. When this statement was written, way back when, I think it would be highly unlikely that the author would have mentioned the predominance of water, since it would have been irrelevent to the principle species (us) in the immediate future.

Had Genesis recorded something like " & God looked into the darkness, & upon the barren land" It would have been a major error because science has significant evidence that earth was submerged.

To me, it's an uncanny, given where knowledge of evolution would have been then.
Of course, this is only my opinion, I'm not contending that this makes the Bible an icon of accuracy.
The whole creation thing is a jigsaw.
Then we have the "two path line"
Evolution of the species & the "planted" (Or ET) species.

 

[Ciaran]

No mate, we're talking about probability.
What is significant is that there was a general discription of the planet in the beginning.
If we get bogged down with what words the author used & say "There was no mention of the earth being submerged" It would be the same as me saying "The absence of the mention of land says it was so"

According to the bible, God was about to create life & the principle species (us)were land animals. When this statement was written, way back when, I think it would be highly unlikely that the author would have mentioned the predominance of water, since it would have been irrelevent to the principle species (us) in the immediate future.

Had Genesis recorded something like " & God looked into the darkness, & upon the barren land" It would have been a major error because science has significant evidence that earth was submerged.

So because the bible doesn't descibe the earth as dry (and why would it, theres a hell of alot of water here) it got it right about the earth being submerged. Big leap there.

What do you mean about the earth being submerged btw?

 

[Terra]

So because the bible doesn't descibe the earth as dry (and why would it, theres a hell of alot of water here) it got it right about the earth being submerged. Big leap there.

What do you mean about the earth being submerged btw?

Completely underwater. All earth having a cover of water.

Big leap there?

Yeah, like the planet is probably 10 billion years old & life probably began 4 or 5 billion years later.
That BTW, was a Stephen Hawking statement.

It's all about probability mate

 

[Chathurga]

What do you mean about the earth being submerged btw?

That's what I was wondering, when was the whole Earth submerged?

 

[Ciaran]

Completely underwater. All earth having a cover of water.

Ehhh, never happened. Theres been a constant amount of water on the planet for the last few billion years.

Yeah, like the planet is probably 10 billion years old & life probably began 4 or 5 billion years later.
That BTW, was a Stephen Hawking statement.

It's all about probability mate

Probability means fuck all in this case. The probability of every event happening in order to get the planet to this state is completely impossible if you look at it on the large scale. But that doesn't matter, every thing did happen in that order.

Planet has been calculated pretty accurately to be about 4.5 billion years old with life starting about 3 billion years ago fyi. So I have a feeling that wasn't a Stephen Hawking quote.

 

[Terra]

Freeplay

I]Terra, you've made patently illogical and deceptive claims about what the Bible states, then gotten upset when I pointed them out to you. Why is that? Why do you hold onto things that cannot be true? I cannot fathom why you latch onto this book as if it's a history or science textbook. It says things that are absolutely false on their face! How can you BELIEVE it?[/I]

The only thing you have pointed out to me, is how little you know, & how little you will learn.
You "cannot fathom why I latch onto this book"
This is a minor breakthrough. Stop trying to fathom it, because I'm not "Latched" onto it.

It is a book with a significant history. It's authenticity has considerable support.
It contains information that could be relative to scientific studies.

Because we have found no evidence, doesn't mean something never happened. It's a continuing work in progess & we should use all the means at out disposal in the pursuit of this knowledge if it's what interests us.

One thing few sane people can deny is that the Bible contains some very accurate Jewish history, & that alone should give great it credibility, even if it's just for the Jews.

 

[eldiablov]

Stop repeating yourself :S

 

[FreePlay]

It is a book with a significant history. It's authenticity has considerable support.

Not from Biblical historians or archaeologists.

Hector Avalos is professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and the author or editor of six books on Biblical studies and religion. In the video linked below, he outlines how modern Biblical historians discount almost the entire Bible as historically inaccurate, and how what little is left is shaky.

Hector Avalos: How Archaeology Killed Biblical History
part 1
part 2

It contains information that could be relative to scientific studies.

Such as what? It's full of scientific falsehoods.

Because we have found no evidence, doesn't mean something never happened.

It also doesn't support that it ever DID happen, which is your unstated major premise.

Your claim is equal to stating that just because I haven't seen a tiny man running around in my house at night, it doesn't mean he's not there. There is no logical basis to assume he has ever existed, does now exist, or ever will exist. Until you find positive evidence, the only logical starting point is not to accept a premise, but to disregard it until evidence is discovered.

It's a continuing work in progess & we should use all the means at out disposal in the pursuit of this knowledge if it's what interests us.

The Bible is a continuing work in progress???

One thing few sane people can deny is that the Bible contains some very accurate Jewish history, & that alone should give great it credibility, even if it's just for the Jews.

Accurate Jewish history? Like the false claim about the Jews being enslaved in Egypt? The Egyptians kept meticulous records about every detail of their society, and oddly enough there was never a mention of Jewish enslavement...

Never make claims that the Bible is historically accurate. You will almost invariably be wrong. I suggest watching a film called The God Who Wasn't There, which purports to debunk many of the myths people have accepted about the origins of the Christian church and the Bible. I'll be watching it tonight. Perhaps we can compare notes?

 

[Terra]

Mate. This is circular.
This what I wrote in my first post
"Religion is a scam, & those that are truly conversant with the bible, either know it, chose confusion, or put far too much trust in the religious/political hierarchy".


Trying to explain something to you without re-wording it is just fruitless & tiresome.

This is the latest example. I wrote. "It is a book with a significant history. It's authenticity has considerable support.
It contains information that could be relative to scientific studies.

Because we have found no evidence, doesn't mean something never happened. It's a continuing work in progess & we should use all the means at out disposal in the pursuit of this knowledge if it's what interests us"

You took that statement apart. Took it out of context, then used it to ridecule me.

If you had have read it with an open mind, there may have been a remote chance that it made sense to you.

It was meant to mean that the study of creation is no where near conclusive, & that if we have an ancient book that gives us a window into cultures, beliefs, & events of those times, we should use it, & everything else we can get, to continue the study (Of creation)

 

[Ciaran]

I still want to know why you asserted that the bible correct and says that the planet was submerged even though it wasn't.

Although I have a feeling you will conveniently backtrack on this and say your interpretation of the bible was wrong and the bible wasn't incorrect.

 

[Greyone]

That's what I was wondering, when was the whole Earth submerged?

when there was the great flood

why do you think Noah built the ark

 

[Terra]

I still want to know why you asserted that the bible correct and says that the planet was submerged even though it wasn't.

I didn't say it was correct, I said there was a common assumption that the earth was submerged.

Although I have a feeling you will conveniently backtrack on this and say your interpretation of the bible was wrong and the bible wasn't incorrect.

By gee, I have a hard time explaining that I don't know what happened in the beginning, & neither does anyone else on this fucking planet.
Not from the Bible, nor from science.
I don't blindly subscribe to something that is incomplete, & if you can find a scientist that knows, you'll have to wait for the visiting hours to discuss it with him.


We can use the information that has been accumulated & give it a pretty good shot, but it only takes one miscalculation to throw the proposal into turmoil.

It was a contention of theorists that straight after the big bang, the universal temperature dropped almost instantly, by about a billion degrees & that vapour on this planet liquified & the earth was inundated.
Volcanic birth, the movement of tectonic plates, the alteration of the earths atmosphere, etc, created dry land & run-off contributed to a variety of the earths surface. There's a whole host of theories on what was taking place 5-10 billion years ago .

You just can't assume that because today, our atmoshere is only capable of supporting enough vapour that when liquified, would be lucky to contribute 1 inch of water to the earths surface, therefore it's a lie.

Evidential probability is a basis to build a theory.
E.G. If they find a large commune of fossilised fish on a mountain, there is a strong possibility that the mountain either ascended rapidly, or it was under water.
That is only evidential probabilty, until the can conclude either way, or simply that they were dropped there by birds.

Read what I write only as "probability", that is, matching theories then expanding them by what other people think.
I can Google all these scientific proposals, but that's not thinking about what has been discovered & what effect that discovery has added, or may have, unless it conclusively proves an earlier theory wrong..

Evolution make perfect sense, because we have seen it repeat itself, & continues to do so.

We have an ancient book that has been transcribe by numerous linguists, Been added to & deleted, & generally corrupted, whether it was an accurate account or not, there would have been little chance of it remaining in it's original form, so it would be a game or foolish person that endorses it in it's entirety.
My point about the Bible is that it's simply another source that purports to explain phenomenon in ancient times. I'm not talking about David & Goliath or Solomans gates.
I accept that you disagree completely, & that's fine, my contention is that if it defines any information that is true, as we know it, it shouldn't be discarded, that's all.

 

[Ciaran]

I didn't say it was correct, I said there was a common assumption that the earth was submerged.

There is no assumption that that earth was submerged, I can't find any reference to it other than a couple of links claiming a biblical flood. A few pages ago you said both the bible and evolution had this assumption but you've never backed this up.

Also evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life at all. You're talking about abiogenesis.

We can use the information that has been accumulated & give it a pretty good shot, but it only takes one miscalculation to throw the proposal into turmoil.

That's why we have the scientific method and peer review. But obviously these methods aren't perfect but its a hell of alot more accurate and trust worthy that someone armed with google putting pieces of info together.

It was a contention of theorists that straight after the big bang, the universal temperature dropped almost instantly, by about a billion degrees & that vapour on this planet liquified & the earth was inundated.

Straight after the big bang this planet didn't exsist. It was about 3 billion years after the big bang before the earth began to form and about 6 billion years after that before water started to appear.

Volcanic birth, the movement of tectonic plates, the alteration of the earths atmosphere, etc, created dry land & run-off contributed to a variety of the earths surface. There's a whole host of theories on what was taking place 5-10 billion years ago.

Source? The places I'm looking all seem to agree on one very similar theory.

You just can't assume that because today, our atmoshere is only capable of supporting enough vapour that when liquified, would be lucky to contribute 1 inch of water to the earths surface, therefore it's a lie.

wat

 

[Terra]

More parroting.

Straight after the big bang this planet didn't exsist. It was about 3 billion years after the big bang before the earth began to form and about 6 billion years after that before water started to appear.

Did you miss the bit about,

There's a whole host of theories on what was taking place 5-10 billion years ago.

Theories mate. All theories. Get it. Unproven scientific theories, & you are asserting them like it's all done & dusted.

Keep reading sunshine,

 

[Ciaran]

Did you miss the bit about,

No, I responded directly to it. Read my posts before replying.

 

[FreePlay]

Because we have found no evidence, doesn't mean something never happened. It's a continuing work in progess & we should use all the means at out disposal in the pursuit of this knowledge if it's what interests us"

No. We should use SCIENCE, since only SCIENCE can explain reality.

It was meant to mean that the study of creation is no where near conclusive, & that if we have an ancient book that gives us a window into cultures, beliefs, & events of those times, we should use it, & everything else we can get, to continue the study (Of creation)

Except that ancient cultures and beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with a scientific explanation of reality.

Postmodernism is a joke. All truths are not equally respectable or valid. There is one truth to reality, and it's our job to pursue that through scientific study, not to take people's feelings and opinions into consideration. Feelings and opinions are irrelevant to the discovery of what actually is.

You've begun with the proposition that we're studying "creation" and you're allowing confirmation bias to reject anything that counters the evidence of a creator.

I didn't say it was correct, I said there was a common assumption that the earth was submerged.

You absolutely did say it was correct. You said science confirmed something that the Bible said 3000 years earlier.

By gee, I have a hard time explaining that I don't know what happened in the beginning, & neither does anyone else on this fucking planet.
Not from the Bible, nor from science.
I don't blindly subscribe to something that is incomplete, & if you can find a scientist that knows, you'll have to wait for the visiting hours to discuss it with him.

Actually, scientists have a nicely complete explanation of the rise and development of life on this planet.

We can use the information that has been accumulated & give it a pretty good shot, but it only takes one miscalculation to throw the proposal into turmoil.

No, it doesn't. It means you fix the calculation. This is a fallacy. It's equivalent to saying that a broken windshield wiper means a car doesn't drive.

It was a contention of theorists that straight after the big bang, the universal temperature dropped almost instantly, by about a billion degrees & that vapour on this planet liquified & the earth was inundated.
Volcanic birth, the movement of tectonic plates, the alteration of the earths atmosphere, etc, created dry land & run-off contributed to a variety of the earths surface. There's a whole host of theories on what was taking place 5-10 billion years ago .

That's absolutely not true. Not one bit. No scientist has ever claimed that the world was already formed straight out of the Big Bang, as you appear to be claiming. I'd love to see your source for this nonsense.

We know how planets formed, and we know that the universe did not cool down "almost instantly", and we know that the planet was never wrapped in water.

You just can't assume that because today, our atmoshere is only capable of supporting enough vapour that when liquified, would be lucky to contribute 1 inch of water to the earths surface, therefore it's a lie.

Kindly explain where the rest of the water went.

We have an ancient book that has been transcribe by numerous linguists, Been added to & deleted, & generally corrupted, whether it was an accurate account or not, there would have been little chance of it remaining in it's original form, so it would be a game or foolish person that endorses it in it's entirety.

Quite agreed.

My point about the Bible is that it's simply another source that purports to explain phenomenon in ancient times. I'm not talking about David & Goliath or Solomans gates.

It is not a scientific source and it does not explain anything. It tells stories. It cannot be used as scientific evidence, only cultural evidence. Cultural beliefs have no influence on what is true, nor do they provide evidence for anything.

I accept that you disagree completely, & that's fine, my contention is that if it defines any information that is true, as we know it, it shouldn't be discarded, that's all.

Such as what? What has it described to be true, and in what degree of detail? When has it ever said something valid in enough detail to be accepted as scientific?

Come on, we're talking about a book that says if you breed cattle in front of a pile of rods, the calves will come out striped! Why would you accept any of it as scientific when it's clearly not? The book was written some 1300 years before modern scientific discovery was even in its infancy.

Theories mate. All theories. Get it. Unproven scientific theories, & you are asserting them like it's all done & dusted.

Clearly you have no clue what a scientific theory is.

Science never proves. Proof requires omniscience. Science provide the most evidentially-explained, experimentally-demonstrated explanations for measurable phenomena. These are called theories.

You're using "theory" in the colloquial form, which is (at best) an educated guess that is equally valid to others on the same subject.

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are not educated guesses, and until something comes along that provides a better explanation than they do, it is all done and dusted. These theories are continually adjusted to incorporate new knowledge about how things work. The reason they have not been discarded is that there hasn't been anything discovered to falsify their base assumptions.

The Biblical story is not a "theory". It's a story. It provides us with no valuable information about how phenomena occur. It is part cultural record, part poetry. It is neither historical nor scientific. There is no use for it in determining scientific truth, only cultural memetics.

 

[Terra]

Clearly you have no clue what a scientific theory is.

Science never proves. Proof requires omniscience. Science provide the most evidentially-explained, experimentally-demonstrated explanations for measurable phenomena. These are called theories.

You're using "theory" in the colloquial form, which is (at best) an educated guess that is equally valid to others on the same subject.

The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are not educated guesses, and until something comes along that provides a better explanation than they do, it is all done and dusted. These theories are continually adjusted to incorporate new knowledge about how things work. The reason they have not been discarded is that there hasn't been anything discovered to falsify their base assumptions.

The Biblical story is not a "theory". It's a story. It provides us with no valuable information about how phenomena occur. It is part cultural record, part poetry. It is neither historical nor scientific. There is no use for it in determining scientific truth, only cultural memetics.

That is the most pompous fucking diatribe of venacular semanitics I have ever fucking heard.
Your capacity to absorb & relate information is commendable, but your powers of comprehension border on the bewildering.
It has been a contant burden trying to get you to think about what I have written, not parrot off the written words that you have read.
Have you ever actually considered contesting known scientific theory with something that you actually thought out for yourself?

Matey, I've been on this issue for well over 40 years.
Ever since I first saw the Spencer Tracy, Fredrick March version of "Inherit the wind", I wanted answers. I only got theories.
I read Payne, Ingersoll & sucked up information about Evolution & scientific probability.
I have watched numerous films, & later, Tapes & video's of scientists debating how a dot emerged in the void.
It became obsessive. As it is with you
& like you, I couldn't wait to corner someone & verbally mug them with what I had learned.
& like you, I had zero tolerance for the ghost theory.
If you had have put me & a God botherer in a life boat, one us would have finished in the drink.

Then at a barbeque, one of the guys there in his early 30's, who was a self taught brilliant business man, had a ton of money & an outragious sense of humour said to me, "Mate, all you athiests & religious zealots are gunna look fucking stupid if some cunt steps out of an aircraft with no wheels, & a space suit & says"You both got it wrong". Theories are nothing more than verbal deals, & you got nothing until the exchange is finalised. If I screemed in someones face, "Give me the money!" I wouldn't have a bean, now have a beer & let's talk porking,,,, but beware of creating"

It was sound advise. You should give it some thought. I did.

Bump:

No, I responded directly to it. Read my posts before replying.

How come you never challenged my "Fish found in mountains" proposal.
How would you address it if you believe that the mountain wasn't inundated.?

How would you explain a fossilised fish that was found in a coal seam in a pit I worked in 2 miles underground that litter the Illawarra ranges?

I don't expect you to know anything about the Illawarra ranges but "Illawarra" is an english derivation of the ancient aboriginals of Australia "Illowra", meaning "Mountains close to the sea".