Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How about this, then, Tscott...

Lets assume that carbon dating is wrong in that it cannot tell us with any accuracy that a bone is X age.

Can't we also assume that the technique would nonetheless be consistent with respect to itself? How is it then that deeper strata finds always date to be older than finds from earlier strata?

Even if carbon dating (or any other dating process) is unable to give us a fair indication of actual age, the test should be consistent with regard to itself.

If I test a dinosaur bone (in a deep strate) and it reveals a 65 million year age, but never a 100,000 year old age, and I test a mammoth bone (in a strate less deep than the Dino) and it reveals an age around 100,000 years old, but never 65 million years old, I think it's fair to say that the strata theory is correct... deeper = older.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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.

I would say that there is a natural process.. though one your side of the aisle refuse to accept.

What I also would say is that in my 36 years on this earth, I have only ever seen behavior which would be considered "natural" that is, I do not believe in magic.

 

[lvbuckeye]

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.

LOL. believing in something for which there is no evidence is not science, friend.

 

[Gatorubet]

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.

Here, the addition "that we know of" has to be added to any sweeping declaration of scientific fact such as the above statement. While we think we are big brain mammals, the "scientists" in the 17th century thought so too.

 

[lvbuckeye]

How about this, then, Tscott...

Lets assume that carbon dating is wrong in that it cannot tell us with any accuracy that a bone is X age.

Can't we also assume that the technique would nonetheless be consistent with respect to itself? How is it then that deeper strata finds always date to be older than finds from earlier strata?

Even if carbon dating (or any other dating process) is unable to give us a fair indication of actual age, the test should be consistent with regard to itself.

If I test a dinosaur bone (in a deep strate) and it reveals a 65 million year age, but never a 100,000 year old age, and I test a mammoth bone (in a strate less deep than the Dino) and it reveals an age around 100,000 years old, but never 65 million years old, I think it's fair to say that the strata theory is correct... deeper = older.

how do you explain fossilized trees extending through several layers?

I would say that there is a natural process.. though one your side of the aisle refuse to accept.

on what evidence? what natural process causes life to arise from non-living matter?

What I also would say is that in my 36 years on this earth, I have only ever seen behavior which would be considered "natural" that is, I do not believe in magic.

nor do i.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I would say that there is a natural process.. though one your side of the aisle refuse to accept.

What I also would say is that in my 36 years on this earth, I have only ever seen behavior which would be considered "natural" that is, I do not believe in magic.

While I don't think I can prove to you that supernatural events happen, you also can't prove that they haven't happened. You have your experience of seeing none. I have mine of seeing the miraculous. And fortunately or unfortunately there are many others who claim the same for both of us. I'm going to keep using the term supernatural as opposed to magic because I think magic implies an illusion, which I guess is probably why you used the term.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

LOL. believing in something for which there is no evidence is not science, friend.

Irony knows no limits.

how do you explain fossilized trees extending through several layers?

Not all dead trees lie on their sides.

on what evidence? what natural process causes life to arise from non-living matter?

If we've established anything on this thread, LV, it's that there's no such thing as supporting evidence... for your position or mine. I note your continued refusal to address the meaning of Gen 2:7 as it relates to your supposed LAW. In fairness to our respective postions, I believe it because I find it convincing, and more convincing than the alternative you argue. You believe your position for this precise reason (in reverse - with respect to mine).

nor do i.

fair enough.

While I don't think I can prove to you that supernatural events happen, you also can't prove that they haven't happened. You have your experience of seeing none. I have mine of seeing the miraculous. And fortunately or unfortunately there are many others who claim the same for both of us. I'm going to keep using the term supernatural as opposed to magic because I think magic implies an illusion, which I guess is probably why you used the term.

I have seen a great many things that are to me unexplained. I didn't say otherwise. I said there is nothing I have ever seen which is unnatural. there's a huge difference, and a critical one at that. My God, if he acts in nature, acts thru nature itself... as seemless a manipulation as if he never acted at all. Your God appears to realize "Whoops.. need to address issue, must act in a manner which cannot be concealed, causing man to lose all hope of rational understanding of the universe. Oh well.. gotta do what I gotta do."

I don't mean to be glib, but I see no reason under any theory which implies much less asserts that an all powerful God must perform acts outside of the rules of nature which he allegedly established. I think a God who performs "supernatural acts" (as you intend the term, I"d say "magical") is weak and underskilled.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Irony knows no limits.

finally you get my point. you have your 'ism,' i have mine.

Not all dead trees lie on their sides.

you missed the point here. if the layers were deposited over millions of years, the higher portions of the tree would have deteriorated long before the sediment could have covered them.

If we've established anything on this thread, LV, it's that there's no such thing as supporting evidence... for your position or mine. I note your continued refusal to address the meaning of Gen 2:7 as it relates to your supposed LAW. In fairness to our respective postions, I believe it because I find it convincing, and more convincing than the alternative you argue. You believe your position for this precise reason (in reverse - with respect to mine).

that's what my main objective in this discussion was. i'm not aware that i ignored your Genesis 2:7 issue. if you are asking me in a tongue in cheek manner whether God broke His own Law, the answer is NO. He created the natural laws; nature follows God's decrees.

fair enough.

cool.

I have seen a great many things that are to me unexplained. I didn't say otherwise. I said there is nothing I have ever seen which is unnatural. there's a huge difference, and a critical one at that. My God, if he acts in nature, acts thru nature itself... as seemless a manipulation as if he never acted at all. Your God appears to realize "Whoops.. need to address issue, must act in a manner which cannot be concealed, causing man to lose all hope of rationale understanding of the universe. Oh well.. gotta do what I gotta do."

what are you talking about?

I don't mean to be glib, but I see no reason under any theory which implies much less asserts that an all powerful God must perform acts outside of the rules of nature which he allegedly established. I think a God who performs "supernatural acts" (as you intend the term, I"d say "magical") is weak and underskilled.

yet you adhere to a theory that implies, much less asserts that life must have, wait, what's the word i'm looking for here(?) ah here it is: miraculously sprang from non living matter, albeit in a natural (sarcasm) manner, despite all the evidence that we have to indicate that this does not happen. yeah, right. nature breaking its own laws is miraculous by definition. and that doesn't answer the question of where that matter came from... where does it all start?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Irony knows no limits.



Not all dead trees lie on their sides.



If we've established anything on this thread, LV, it's that there's no such thing as supporting evidence... for your position or mine. I note your continued refusal to address the meaning of Gen 2:7 as it relates to your supposed LAW. In fairness to our respective postions, I believe it because I find it convincing, and more convincing than the alternative you argue. You believe your position for this precise reason (in reverse - with respect to mine).

Edit:
Basically I agree with LV the reason I jumped in was establish that evolutionists believe a conclusion based on evidence just as a creationist believes a conclusion based on that same evidence.


fair enough.



I have seen a great many things that are to me unexplained. I didn't say otherwise. I said there is nothing I have ever seen which is unnatural. there's a huge difference, and a critical one at that. My God, if he acts in nature, acts thru nature itself... as seemless a manipulation as if he never acted at all. Your God appears to realize "Whoops.. need to address issue, must act in a manner which cannot be concealed, causing man to lose all hope of rational understanding of the universe. Oh well.. gotta do what I gotta do."

I don't mean to be glib, but I see no reason under any theory which implies much less asserts that an all powerful God must perform acts outside of the rules of nature which he allegedly established. I think a God who performs "supernatural acts" (as you intend the term, I"d say "magical") is weak and underskilled.

Oh, I agree an all powerful God can create life any way He wants. He can choose to act within, or out of the laws he creates. However there is no evidence for a law of nature that creates life from non-life. I certainly believe God could have created life in the way you describe, I just don't believe He did. So all we know about life is that it was created, not how (aside from Him telling us).

Furthermore, just because you believe that the best way for God to create life is within the law He created doesn't make it the best way for God to do it. There are many people who would disagree. I certainly do.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

you missed the point here. if the layers were deposited over millions of years, the higher portions of the tree would have deteriorated long before the sediment could have covered them.

No all deposits take millions of years. Likewise, not all dead trees which have not fallen over do so on land. In fact, I can easily invision a dead tree laying proped up on a rocky ledge at the bottom of some lake, which one day shall be all dried up... and exhibit different strata (in terms of definitive time lines). I'm no expert in the are... I'm just saying it makes sense to me... and I am inclined to believe those people who have made it there career to become experts in such a field. Ask BuckeyeRyn.. I watch way too much Science TV (ie Geology shows, space shows, etc.) I defer to those folks before I defer to a self serving theory of religion. To be sure, I believe in God... just not the God everyone else always seems to be talking about.

that's what my main objective in this discussion was. i'm not aware that i ignored your Genesis 2:7 issue. if you are asking me in a tongue in cheek manner whether God broke His own Law, the answer is NO. He created the natural laws; nature follows God's decrees.

Not tounge in cheek at all. First, I'd observe that your answer is a cop out. It does nothing more than accept from authority an exception to the rule. But, that wasn't my point... my point was... you say it's a LAW that life only comes from life... and yet, Gen 2:7 establishes otherwise. Life does not arise from life in all cases, and thus your LAW is in error.

what are you talking about?

Well, I was talking to TbuckeyeScott

yet you adhere to a theory that implies, much less asserts that life must have, wait, what's the word i'm looking for here(?) ah here it is: miraculously sprang from non living matter, albeit in a natural (sarcasm) manner, despite all the evidence that we have to indicate that this does not happen. yeah, right. nature breaking its own laws is miraculous by definition. and that doesn't answer the question of where that matter came from... where does it all start?

I don't find there to be anything miraculous about natural processes. Life began however it began. I choose to believe (in the shortest and non technical expression) it was the long process of various combinations of nucletides becoming DNA, which ended up making single cells, which began to become multiple cells, which became multiple celled entities with specific "skills" (like, say, dissolving oxygen) these entities ended up also combining for the larger purpose of reproduction and survival... and so on..

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm saying it makes sense to me. And, in all that I have learned about the natural world, appears to me to be in accord with the remainder. In any case, your unwillingness to accept the idea does not make it miraculous or sarcastically natural. It means you don't accept it, for reasons known only to you, though I would speculate it has much to do with a foundational and critical misunderstanding of what's being discussed - largely resultant to the threat such a conclusion would pose to the existence to God as you believe him to exist.

My understanding of God and what he truly is - is not now, nor has he ever been, threatened by abiogenesis... slef reproducing universes... chemestry... any of Hawkings Ideas... and I am able to reconsile my infinite God with the reality that things like Evolution are. That is to say, if Evolution is true and correct, my God survives. I believe you and like minded people argue so streneously against evolution because you believe your God cannot survive if Evolution is true. Your God can't exists if Evolution is true. I find the contention silly.

God is pefectly free to exists and even be an all powerful infinite God no matter what is the truth or falsicity of Evolution. It seems to me, and maybe I"m wrong here, all this stems from the fear that the Bible may not be the Word of God. My God survives the Bible being Rubbish as well...

 

[GoBucks89]

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"

Proof? Who said anything about proof? You say that the evidence supports a "big bang". I say it doesn't. You have your opinion and I have mine. This is not difficult.

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.

When you say that the evidence supports one view over another, you are offering an opinion. I might just as well look at the same evidence and say that it supports a different view (which I do). That's my opinion. Yours is no better than mine.

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.

Nor would I ask you to prove it. I would simply accept it on faith.

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.

No need for me to present evidence, since I am not trying to convince you of anything. You have stated your beliefs to me in the past, and I've got no problem with it. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I can live with that.

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

I agree. But as long as Brewtus insists on shoving his beliefs down my throat, I will continue to politely insist that he stop, since his beliefs are no better than mine.

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

That's your opinion. You are convinced, that's OK with me. I won't try to move you.

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

No. Try again.

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.

The dating methods used to provide those billion year estimates are based on assumptions. If you believe the assumptions, then you believe the dates. I don't believe the assumptions, and so the dates are meaningless to me.

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.

You already told me I can't quote the Bible, so there's no way to comply with your request. I take it seriously. Whether you do or not is up to you.

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

It is written "do not put the Lord your God to the test". Whoops, there I go quoting against orders. Sorry!

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.

There is no need to "believe" in that which I can see with my own eyes. And yes, Brewtus and I have different beliefs about how it all came about.

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."

Not at all. It is well established that asphalt is created by men who have the materials and knowledge to do it. I haven't actually seen it done, but I'll accept it on faith because the people who told me that have no reason to lie about it. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll be man enough to admit it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Oh, I agree an all powerful God can create life any way He wants. He can choose to act within, or out of the laws he creates. However there is no evidence for a law of nature that creates life from non-life. I certainly believe God could have created life in the way you describe, I just don't believe He did. So all we know about life is that it was created, not how (aside from Him telling us).

I bold the part I address first. There is evidence. You're presently living on the very petrie dish which establishes it. Why can't life be reproduced in the lab? Time.

Of course, you may believe God can act in any way you wish to believe he might act. But... how can your God, if he must act outside of the natural rules he created, be said to be All knowing, or in contrast all powerful? He either did not foresee a consequence of his creation which requires his supernatural intervention to "fix" OR he was unable to create a natural universe which woud not later require his supernatural corrective measures, even though he foresaw the same.

Furthermore, just because you believe that the best way for God to create life is within the law He created doesn't make it the best way for God to do it. There are many people who would disagree. I certainly do.

I don't mean to sound like an arrogant prick, but I'm gonna take that risk. My contention isn't about the "best" way to do anything. My contention is, given the choice between these two alternatives (The God who would act within the laws of nature and he who does not), the way I believe is in support of a more powerful God... A God, as I was getting at in my statements above, who must perform miracles is either not all knowing, or not all powerful in his ability to create. My God is. Therefore, I worship my God over any other poser.

 

[GoBucks89]

But... how can your God, if he must act outside of the natural rules he created, be said to be All knowing, or in contrast all powerful? He either did not foresee a consequence of his creation which requires his supernatural intervention to "fix" OR he was unable to create a natural universe which woud not later require his supernatural corrective measures, even though he foresaw the same.

God is eternal and spiritual, and therefore is outside of the known physical laws, which He created in the first place. Everything He does is outside of the material world, although many of the effects He causes are inside of it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

89 -

I see we're arguing the same thing in part... notably, this entire discussion is ridiculous because none of us have any way of establishing anything because our contentions will always break down to "Well, it's just your opinion" or "That's just a theory."

I'm unsatisfied with your unwillingness to provide any external support as it relates to your understanding of the Bible... but... that's fine.. it's not like you owe me an answer or anything.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

God is eternal and spiritual, and therefore is outside of the known physical laws, which He created in the first place. Everything He does is outside of the material world, although many of the effects He causes are inside of it.

Sure... I can live with that.. but... why must he do so in a way that would run afoul of those rules which he created?

I have no issues with God acting in the universe... I just don't see any reason why he'd do so in a way which would be noticed.... at least noticed in terms of the act being unnatural.