TTM

Thanks for proving my point. At least you are honest about your intellectual dishonesty.

And I'm waiting for the scientific explanation for talking snakes. I have a feeling we'll both be waiting for some time...

The bible can and has been used to support pretty much any argument, and usually both sides at the same time. Why should it be any different wrt science?

The ancient Hebrews believed in a flat circular earth. Ancient Hebrew cosmology With supporting bible passages Like with the rest of your "the creator has intimate knowledge of his creation" posts, you are cherry picking passages, and then misrepresenting or distorting their plain meaning to fit a modern scientific world view

When do we get the scientific explanation for talking snakes?

I was fishing for a clear admission. Oh well, it appears she is ignoring my last posts.

Them's fightin words. You trying to start a holy war? (I mean in general ... not with me of course)

Well that's a relief! On The other hand, I don't think these two are Catholic, so I'm probably still going to burn

Even if He did create us (He did not, and does not exist), that does not relieve Him of the responsibility of acting morally toward his creations, any more than I can morally torture my pets. The bible also teaches us snakes can talk. No sin is worthy of eternal torture. Or even finite torture. That's convenient logic for keeping churches full and priests employed. But it does not change the morality of the situation.

For analogy, what would you consider a tin-pot dictator who required constant bowing and scraping, and despite you living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence, would have you tortured for the rest of your life for simply refusing to acknowledge him?

So by your analogy, God is having the victim of the crime tortured for eternity? Or that God has created a crime for which there is no victim, and given it the worst possible penalty?

The point of my example, since it apparently must be spelled out for you, is that if your God exists and operates according to your beliefs, He is by any reasonable definition of the term, Evil. Your premise is that there is evidence for God. That is up to you to demonstrate. The scientific consensus is there is no evidence, I have seen nothing to indicate they're wrong. If your "intimate knowledge" argument is your interpretation of selective passages from the bible, it demonstrates nothing but an ability to cherry pick and to bend evidence so that it fits your conclusions. There are as many or more passages in the bible that directly contradict science ... off the top of my head, birds and fish evolved at substantially different times, where the bible claims they were created together. Snakes also have never had vocal chords, let alone sophisticated brains. Regardless, appeals to the bible are not evidence, since there is no more evidence that the your bible was devinely inspired than the works of Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or J.K. Rowling

Who is the victim in me not believing in God?

Since the highlighted premise is false, your argument fails, my point stands.

I pointed out the contradiction of a supposedly Good and Just supernatural being that hides his existance, apparently so that he can have eternally tortured those of his creations that use the rational mind he gave them to come to the conclusion he doesn't exist. The response "they can be eternally tortured because they are not blindly following some random document of dubious origin" kind of misses the point.

Looks cool, I may check it out. Have to get my computer up and running again though. Right now I'm cell phone only

Yes, I recently watched a video clip showing the clouds in motion ... stunning

Actual science has given me so many moments of awe and wonder. I really don't see the need for fairy tales

Blackbird and Betsy, one of you is arguing for a literal interpretation of creation, the other figurative. It would be nice if you guys could get your story straight, especially since the point of this thread was how perfect and consistent the message of the bible is

I have the entire body of science, which along with secularism, is responsible for the relative peace, wealth, and high standard of living of modern western societies as evidence. You have a book of dubious origin and a religion to go along with which was responible for the conditions in the West in the middle ages. The Middle East has a similar book and religion which is responsible for the current conditions there. I have responded to your "evidence", whenever you presented any. I am still waiting for a direct response for many of the points I raised, for example the issue with your "flood" layers not being mixed, despite having raised it on multiple occasions.

As far as I know ... the Commandments are fiction along with your deity I have contempt for any idea for which there is no rational expaination nor proof of existance. Ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, a creator deity who loves us unconditionally, but will torture us for eternity for using the rational mind he gave us. I don't kneel and pray. That's kind of the point. Why would your "TRUE God" require you to kneel and pray anyway? That seems like a ... personality flaw.

Simple subjects become complex when studied by someone who has a strong motivation not to understand. When presented by evidence showing your beliefs are false, ignore (refuse to process) the evidence and retreat back to your safe space. Because remember, God likes to have tortured for eternity those creations of His that would prefer to use their "God given" rational mind and free will

So you were taught: you did not come to this conclusion on your own? And you are unwilling to entertain the idea your teacher was mistaken, that the truth might be something other than what you were taught?

No. I use "false" age interchangeably with "apparent" age. As in God falsified his creation to make it look older than its true age. That was your assertion and not mine. If you are looking for people with far more knowledge then you, why not scientists as well? I am happy to see you are willing to question some of your beliefs, but why do you feel the need to cling to a literal interpretation of Creation, rather than joining the vast majority of Christians that do not? You also keep bringing up the "fossils deposited in Noah's flood" argument, whereas I have pointed out at least three times that this argument fails without supernatural interference, as fossils are found in distinct layers rather than all jumbled together. For an analogy: if a farm was flooded, all thing being equal you would expect a layer of mud laid down by the flood to be equally likely to contain a random mix of the bodies of chickens, pigs, cows, etc. You would not expect that one layer would contain only chickens, and another only cows, and another only pigs. Yet this is what happens in the fossil record. And it is true that the same geological layer contains the same fossils regardless of where the geological layer is located, even when separated by continents. Not only that, but the order of the fossils in the layers is also always consistent: older (deeper) layers always have fossils we associate with older life, and newer (shallower) layers always have fossils associated with more recent life.

I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age. Because it is prima facie evidence (but by no means the only evidence) for the age of the earth, the age of life on earth, evolution, and the general incorrectness of a literal interpretation of the bible Assuming God could create a universe without a falsified age, why did He not? Why did he hide the fact the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Why did he create the universe in such a way that studying it would lead to conclusions that directly contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? He wanted to hide all evidence of his existance except for one document of dubious origin and attribution, to trick people into disbelief in his existance, so He could then have them tortured for all eternity in Hell for using their "God given" rational mind and free will? You first sentence contradicts the rest. If it cannot be dissected by science, then your "science oriented creationists" are proving nothing. Also, these "scientists" (at least the ones you linked to) seem to be arguing against the earth having an false apparent age. Both of these are examples of playing both sides of the fence. Please pick a side. Your "creation scientists" are not persuasive because they do not understand or perform science. They form a conclusion first (i.e. the bible is literally correct) and then cherry pick or outright distort evidence to fit in with that narrative. Because of this, an even passing knowledge of what the actual science says is enough to poke massive holes in their assertions. Real science forms a hypothesis first, then tests it to see if the hypothesis is supported, and discards it if not. Scientific theories are only strongly accepted if they produce repeatable results, have predictive power, and are confirmed by multiple independant lines of evidence. And even then they can be superceded if a more accurate theory, or one with a greater range of applicability comes along.