Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Your facts are just theories objection in 3....2....1....

 

[lvbuckeye]

So you chose not to answer any of my questions and jumped right into abiogenesis. I'm disappointed; I was looking forward to your responses. :(

and you chose not to address the first five paragraphs of my post, and concentrated on the last bit where i stated that your 'science' has a philosophical and religious base.

actually, i had about an hour's worth of stuff typed out, but deleted it all because i didn't feel like beating around the bush. the bottom line is always the first life.

I hope your argument isn't based on the assumption that since science hasn't been successful so far in creating new life in a laboratory setting (we've only been trying for about 50 years and it took nature over a billion years to do so)

careful. your religion is showing. i'm sure you agree that nature follows laws. does nature write those laws? does nature have foreknowledge? is nature the guiding force in the universe?

that you discredit every scientific theory. What if an announcement were made tomorrow by some scientist that life was finally created from non-life? Would that make you an atheist? I don't think so. I'm sure your faith is supported by more than just gaps in our knowledge.

LOL. actually, yes it would. but i don't have to worry about that ever happening. however, i am not attempting to discredit every scientific theory, an argument that i often see when engaging in this discussion. in fact, i really don't want to discredit ANY scientific theory. my main goal is to convince you that you 'science' has become your religion, and nature- and consequently man, since he is at the pinnacle of 'evolution'- is your god.

And there are many gaps in our scientific knowledge; I'm not denying that. But just because we don't know with certainty what sparked the Big Bang doesn't mean that we don't know with scientific certainty that the Big Bang did occur 14 billion years ago.

we DON'T know for certainty that the Big Bang occurred 14 billion years ago, and to claim otherwise is the height of human folly. as for how it happened, my answer is as good as yours: God spoke, and BANG(!) it was.

And because we don't know exactly how the first forms of life appeared doesn't mean that evolution isn't a fact

again, presupposition based not in science, but in religious naturalism.

and that humans share a common ancestor with apes.

really? that's news to me. perhaps you would care to inform us who that was, since evidently you've been there to see it.

But a claim that the universe and humans came about as literally described in the Bible is strictly a matter of faith.

as is the claim that the universe and humans came about by defying every basic rule that we know guides life.

There is no theory of Creationism and no supporting evidence of the same. So once again I'll stand by my postion: science is a superior method of gaining knowledge about natural history than the Bible.

unless your science is guided by a philosophical and religious belief system, which in your case is naturalism.

*Romans 1:21-25 comes to mind...*

 

[lvbuckeye]

No, I'm not stating my opinion. These are scientific facts. It's a fact that the universe is around 14 billion years old.
It's a fact that all life currently on the planet evolved and shares a common ancestor (or ancestors), including humans. This is all supported by evidence gathered from the fields of astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology. There is no credible evidence supporting a 6,000-year-old earth, or a universe that was created in 6 days, or a global flood, or the concept that man was created out of clay and woman from one of his ribs. These are the facts. If you want the story of Genesis to be taken seriously you must provide evidence supporting your position, not just try to discredit science and evolution. Where's your evidence?

where is YOUR evidence? why are the missing links still missing? shouldn't we have found them by now? don't give me that 'god is in the gaps' crap either. your 'facts' are based in faith just as mine are.

 

[GoBucks89]

No, I'm not stating my opinion. These are scientific facts. It's a fact that the universe is around 14 billion years old. It's a fact that all life currently on the planet evolved and shares a common ancestor (or ancestors), including humans.

No, those are just beliefs.

This is all supported by evidence gathered from the fields of astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology.

In your opinion. In my opinion, it is not supported.

There is no credible evidence supporting a 6,000-year-old earth, or a universe that was created in 6 days, or a global flood, or the concept that man was created out of clay and woman from one of his ribs.

None that you would consider credible, but of course any evidence leading to that conclusion is "not credible" by definition in your way of thinking. It's entirely pre-suppositional thinking. I have no problem with that, but you ought to be honest about it. And you're not.

These are the facts.

No, those are your beliefs, based on your philosophical pre-suppositions.

If you want the story of Genesis to be taken seriously you must provide evidence supporting your position, not just try to discredit science and evolution.

I don't expect it to be taken seriously by the likes of you. You're an atheist, which makes it philosophically impossible for you to accept the Bible. The evidence is irrelevant.

Where's your evidence?

Everywhere. The universe and all living things are evidence of the Creator. Again, I don't expect you to accept this. I know that your religious beliefs make it impossible. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I can live with that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Evidence of the Big Bang - three degree radiation which can be noticed in every direction. Proof? No. It's evidence in support. I see that - as usual - the non-science side of the aisle mistakes the use of the word evidence as meaning "proof"

Evidence supports conclusions, nothing more, nothing less. It gives one reason to believe a theory may (or may not be) be true. The argument re: your facts are just your opinion is disengenious in that it miscontrues what's being argued.

To illustrate to the ridiculous... I have evidence to support my theory that I am awake right now. But... alas, I cannot prove it. I can only support it.

Anyway... that's one for science. How about you guys on the other side give me evidence that God did anything re: creating the universe. Don't tell me what the Bible says, that's not evidence... and if it were, it'd be hearsay.

In other words, don't give scientists shit for believing "theories" like it's some kind of trump card for your side.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Then bringing in evidence from any Evolution believing scientists should be Hearsay to since that's all you would be doing. That's the only evidence most of us have is evidence from someone else.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No, those are just beliefs. In your opinion. In my opinion, it is not supported.

No.. they are beliefs that are supported by evidence. Indeed, multiple pieces of evidence which all point towards a common resolution...

You must believe there is no such thing as a fact at all. Yes?

None that you would consider credible, but of course any evidence leading to that conclusion is "not credible" by definition in your way of thinking. It's entirely pre-suppositional thinking. I have no problem with that, but you ought to be honest about it. And you're not.

Humor us, if you'd be so kind, with your support of a 6,000 year old earth. We've been down the road before where the "science side" says this dating process says A and your side says "well the test was fouled, bla bla bla." Lets have it, then. Support your contention with some external evidence, and then us Science folks can turn the tables on your side with similar arguments about how your sources methods are in error.

I don't expect it to be taken seriously by the likes of you. You're an atheist, which makes it philosophically impossible for you to accept the Bible. The evidence is irrelevant.

This is a cop out answer of epic proportions. I'm not an atheist, 89 (and I realize you're not addressing me) so answer his question for me. Establish for me why the Genesis story should be taken seriously.

Shall I cut out one of my ribs and try to turn it in to a woman while I wait?

Everywhere. The universe and all living things are evidence of the Creator. Again, I don't expect you to accept this. I know that your religious beliefs make it impossible. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I can live with that.

And... of course, here's the rub.... You admit to believing in the exact same things Brewtus perports to ("everything"). You attribute these things to a creator and he does not.

The request was for evidence, and your answer was "everything" OK.... I assume then that we're in agreement that Asphalt exists. Establish how this evidences the creator. Of course, you can't... because as soon as you try and support your answer, you move away from "facts" and "evidence" right in to the deplorable and untrustworthy "theory."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Then bringing in evidence from any Evolution believing scientists should be Hearsay to since that's all you would be doing. That's the only evidence most of us have is evidence from someone else.

Hearsay is not evidence gained from someone else... hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. No, obviously, this isn't a court, but the principle of it is this - you cannot support that the Bible is true by circular references to the Bible itself. In as much as the Bible describes an historical event, where is the fingerprint? I took a crap this morning. I could prove it to you by showing you my toilet. Of course, it doesn't mean it HAS to be my shit... Someone could have flushed it and replaced it with their own shit... but... it is surely evidence in support of my contention that I dropped logs this AM. (truth is, I flushed... but anyway)

Unlike evolution theorists, they point to external things which they believe support the theory. Changes in bones over time of same specied animals, for example. Thats' not hearsay at all.

In any case, the evolution discussion is far too volatile in America and while this disturbs me in ways I cannot express, lets talk about something less threatening.

Do you believe in gravity?

I defy you to prove to me it exists.

 

[lvbuckeye]

No.. they are beliefs that are supported by evidence. Indeed, multiple pieces of evidence which all point towards a common resolution...

You must believe there is no such thing as a fact at all. Yes?



Humor us, if you'd be so kind, with your support of a 6,000 year old earth. We've been down the road before where the "science side" says this dating process says A and your side says "well the test was fouled, bla bla bla." Lets have it, then. Support your contention with some external evidence, and then us Science folks can turn the tables on your side with similar arguments about how your sources methods are in error.


This is a cop out answer of epic proportions. I'm not an atheist, 89 (and I realize you're not addressing me) so answer his question for me. Establish for me why the Genesis story should be taken seriously.

Shall I cut out one of my ribs and try to turn it in to a woman while I wait?


And... of course, here's the rub.... You admit to believing in the exact same things Brewtus perports to ("everything"). You attribute these things to a creator and he does not.

The request was for evidence, and your answer was "everything" OK.... I assume then that we're in agreement that Asphalt exists. Establish how this evidences the creator. Of course, you can't... because as soon as you try and support your answer, you move away from "facts" and "evidence" right in to the deplorable and untrustworthy "theory."

evidence of creation? easy. LIFE. life cannot come from that which is not living. this is an established scientific LAW. not a theory like relativity or gravity, but a law.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

evidence of creation? easy. LIFE. life cannot come from that which is not living. this is an established scientific LAW. not a theory like relativity or gravity, but a law.

life cannot come from that which is not living.

Sounds like a theory to me.

And what says you to this evidence to the contrary:

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Is dust a living thing?

Incidentally - it's not a law. It's a belief. I'm not being difficult, when I say this. I'm saying that a completely reasonable theory states that life springs from non-life and forms the basis as to why we are here to contemplate the issue at all. YOu may not accept the rationale, but that doesn't mean it is any less true (or false)

 

[sandgk]

evidence of creation? easy. LIFE. life cannot come from that which is not living. this is an established scientific LAW. not a theory like relativity or gravity, but a law.

Life is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything other than life. It does not prove that a divine creation happened - in this you either believe or do not believe. Proving that the creation happened is a fool's errand, one that men or women of faith should not permit themselves to be goaded into attempting.
Scientific law? I know that what you stated "life cannot come from that which is not alive" is a precept to an hypothesis, not a law. I'd leave laws to elected representatives and science to well, fellows like me, scientists.

 

[lvbuckeye]

it's not a theory. did you miss the second clause of that sentence?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

it's not a theory. did you miss the second clause of that sentence?

Hardly missed it. Saying it's a law does not make it so. Even if you write it in all caps.

Like I said, even if you disagree with the theory, there is a completely reasonable alternative (and contrary) explaination otherwise.

Indeed, as I quoted and you ignored - the Bible itself supports the notion that life may spring from non-life. Or.. have I just misunderstood what the Bible means (as I apparently so often do)?

And, as Sandgk observes, is not offer of proof of a creator anyway.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

But to say there isn't evidence for younger earth ( and thus creation) is simply not true either. As has been said before we all have the same earth, fossils and universe to live in and draw conclusions from. Take fossils for instance. An evolutionist would state that the grouping of the animals suggests that the animals in each strata lived at the same time and animals found in different strata lived in different times(ages). The creationist interprets the same evidence( the strata) as animals that existed in the same geographical area and were buried together. The creationist also believes that their conclusion better explains why fossils are found in strata that the evolutionist doesn't beleive they would be.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Hardly missed it. Saying it's a law does not make it so. Even if you write it in all caps.

Like I said, even if you disagree with the theory, there is a completely reasonable alternative (and contrary) explaination otherwise.

Indeed, as I quoted and you ignored - the Bible itself supports the notion that life may spring from non-life. Or.. have I just misunderstood what the Bible means (as I apparently so often do)?

And, as Sandgk observes, is not offer of proof of a creator anyway.

I think LV should have used the better statement of that law. There is no Natural process by which life can be created from non-life... However if God is supernatural then that law does not apply to anything He does.