The Bible

[Mighty AC]

The Bible and Science Are Coming Into Agreement.

I agree, that for some groups that statement is certainly true; and you are revealing exactly how that happens. I had said that by asserting that the Bible is the inerrant word of god that you are not free to go where the evidence leads. It turns out that I was wrong. By labeling passages that conflict with observed fact as allegorical, you are indeed moving with the evidence without violating your inerrancy belief.

Anyway, good for you for bending. Many don't. There is still a large population preaching the flood, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, etc. What's worse is they have used their political clout to prevent the teaching of science that clashes with their beliefs.

[betsy]

Great. So if science has proven the flood story, literal 6 days of creation and the young earth to be "allegories", why are you clinging to the concept of god barriers to evolution?

Let's not hastily jump to conclusion here...

What science proved was that earth is not young. It did not prove anything on macro-evolution.

I guess the difference would be evidence. We have observed actual speciation events, in living animals (not fossils), that would qualify as new "kinds" according to the Bible. It seems that there is no reason for you to partially deny evolution any longer.

Pardon me Mighty AC....no matter what you say, the fact remains the same: there is not a single proof to evolution. Macro-evolution stands on mere assumptions.

I know you want it to be true....that doesn't mean it's true. Personal opinions don't count.

If you dig in your heels and just keep insisting on this fallacy...there's no point in discussion, is there?

[betsy]

We have observed actual speciation events, in living animals (not fossils), that would qualify as new "kinds" according to the Bible. It seems that there is no reason for you to partially deny evolution any longer.

Eh? I don't get what you're saying about what "would qualify as new kinds according to the Bible." Expand on that. What do you mean, and where did you get that idea? Cite.

[betsy]

I agree, that for some groups that statement is certainly true; and you are revealing exactly how that happens. I had said that by asserting that the Bible is the inerrant word of god that you are not free to go where the evidence leads. It turns out that I was wrong. By labeling passages that conflict with observed fact as allegorical, you are indeed moving with the evidence without violating your inerrancy belief.

Anyway, good for you for bending. Many don't. There is still a large population preaching the flood, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, etc. What's worse is they have used their political clout to prevent the teaching of science that clashes with their beliefs.

I can't speak for other Christians. Anyway, let me clarify again: IF TOMORROW SCIENCE FINDS CONCLUSIVE PROOFS THAT EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD, or that HUMANS CO-EXISTED WITH DINOSAURS, etc.., I CAN, and I WILL SWING THAT WAY.

It is possible that what we know as facts today will be fiction tomorrow. Of course I'm not talking about tomorrow, literally. As technology improves, chances are we'll discover more.

So you see....my Christian belief does not cripple me.... or bind me.... nor does it force me to be narrow-minded.....to be confined in a box. It is actually atheists who are forced into that position. I can step out of the box and say yes, there is evolution (and still be within my belief) - but you cannot step out of your box and say, yes there is a Designer.

With atheists - it's either evolution or evolution! It has to be evolution!

Atheists cannot make a compromise - not even one teeny-weeny bit, that maybe there is a Creator....or a Designer.

Simply put - atheism is riding on the back of evolution. That's why to them, the answer has to be evolution.

Edited November 21, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

With atheists - it's either evolution or evolution! It has to be evolution!

Atheists cannot make a compromise - not even one teeny-weeny bit, that maybe there is a Creator....or a Designer.

Simply put - atheism is riding on the back of evolution. That's why to them, the answer has to be evolution.

You're either confused about the definition of atheism, evolution or both. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. So if Jesus shows up at my place for supper I would no longer be an atheist. Do you think he'd eat pork chops?

Atheists aren't required to accept any ideas at all, including scientific theories. It's not a belief system.

Also you are aware that evolution is not a theory which explains how life came to exist right? It just explains how life diversified.

[Mighty AC]

Eh? I don't get what you're saying about what "would qualify as new kinds according to the Bible." Expand on that. What do you mean, and where did you get that idea? Cite.

1) We have observed populations evolve to the point that can no longer interbreed. The starting, ending and intermediate populations all still exist. I posted a video about salamanders several posts back but here is another link: http://evolution.ber...0_0_0/devitt_01

2) This piece analyzes the 31 occurrences of the phrase "kind" in the Bible. It concludes that

The Hebrew word for "kind" in the Bible can be very specific. Although "miyn" (Strong's Concordance H4327) may sometimes refer to a broad class of animals, it certainly also refers to animals at nearly the species level of classification. There is no Biblical support for the assertion that genetic information cannot be gained, nor for any "change barrier" that restricts how far a "kind" may evolve.[/Quote] http://www.theistic-...n.com/kind.html

[Sleipnir]

Just trying to save you the effort. Is that the one from the 13th century????

If so, sorry....that's not ancient enough. We're talking waaaaay before the 1st century.

Let just say that it took over a thousand years before people decided to start describing their religious belief.

Btw the Bible was created near the 2nd century.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Sleipnir]

I don't want to make claims based on assumptions. That's what you evolutionists do - make claims based on mere assumptions!

No they don't, the data they obtain are from either observational of experimental design.

[cybercoma]

William Lane Craig is a former atheist Philosopher

No he's not. Daniel Dennett and Bertrand Russell are atheist philosophers. WLC is a hack.

[betsy]

You're either confused about the definition of atheism, evolution or both. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. So if Jesus shows up at my place for supper I would no longer be an atheist. Do you think he'd eat pork chops?

Do you believe it is possible that there is God who created everything?

Since even Dawkins admit he cannot be sure that God does not exists, do you THINK it is possible that God does exists and He is the Designer?

Answer yes or no on both questions.

Atheists aren't required to accept any ideas at all, including scientific theories. It's not a belief system.

Also you are aware that evolution is not a theory which explains how life came to exist right? It just explains how life diversified.

It does not explain how life came to exist. It cannot even fathom to imagine how it all began (cosmology)! Where that very first particle....or whatever it is they assume may have caused the "ball to start rolling"....or the "tapestry" to start knitting itself, so to speak.

It ASSUMES how life diversified.

If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin, as possible- without any single proof to support it - they don't make sense when they throw out the Bible despite the astronomical mathematical probability of its listed facts - not to mention the 300 or so Jesus Prophecies that have all come true! Can you imagine that just with the Jesus Prophecies alone - it's multiplying the astronomical mathematical probability x 300 (minimum)!

Therefore, it means atheism is based purely on FAITH!

They. Are. Not. Thinking!

If they are thinking - they'd make sense!

Edited November 22, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Btw the Bible was created near the 2nd century.

Sleipner, the point remains the same: The Bible made those claims waaaaaaaay BEFORE science was able to discover and explain. Some facts even waited for the Hubble telescope to be discovered, to be explained.

[Sleipnir]

Some facts even waited for the Hubble telescope to be discovered, to be explained.

Like what?

[Shakeyhands]

I can step out of the box and say yes, there is evolution (and still be within my belief) - but you cannot step out of your box and say, yes there is a Designer.

This simply isn't true Betsy, speaking for myself anyway, if there was some proof, ANY proof that there was a "designer" the rational person in me would say ok...

Until then though, lets just use the stories of all religions as guides to be good to one another. You know, as they were intended to be before they were perverted.

[GostHacked]

Do you believe it is possible that there is God who created everything?

Only if you can accept the possibility that there really is no god. But that's not happening anytime soon.

[Mighty AC]

Since even Dawkins admit he cannot be sure that God does not exists, do you THINK it is possible that God does exists and He is the Designer?[/Quote]Yes, it is possible but just as unlikely as Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or the earth bearing turtle.

It does not explain how life came to exist. It cannot even fathom to imagine how it all began (cosmology)![/Quote] Right, that's what I said. Evolution explains how life diversifies not how life began. Similarly, gravitation is a theory that matter attracts, it does not deal with structure or properties of matter.

If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin

What is evolution? What is an evolutionist? What is the evolutionist's preferred version of origin?

[eyeball]

Do you believe it is possible that there is God who created everything?

Since even Dawkins admit he cannot be sure that God does not exists, do you THINK it is possible that God does exists and He is the Designer?

Answer yes or no on both questions.

Speaking for myself...

No and no.

[Mighty AC]

Therefore, it means atheism is based purely on FAITH!

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, science, politics, sex, drugs or rock & roll. It is simply a lack of belief. Just like you have a lack of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Claiming that all atheists share any beliefs beyond their lack of belief in deities is dishonest. It would be like claiming all Christians endorse capitalism. Two unrelated groups.

I don't understand why you continue to attack evolution, when you, yourself believe it. The only difference between your beliefs and the actual theory are the invisible barriers supplied by a god that limit the extent of diversification. However, as we have seen there is no justification for the barrier idea in science or the Bible.

[The_Squid]

If atheists believe the astronomical mathematical probability of evolutionists' preferred version of origin

atheism..... evolution.... origin of life....

These three things are all different. You don't seem to be able to draw distinctions between three very different concepts.

[wyly]

I'm an atheist, I agreed little with Christopher hitchens found him politically distasteful ....i do like richard Dawkins but disagree with his being open to the possibility of a god...one size does not fit all when it comes to atheists, the only thing we all have in common is our atheism...

[Sleipnir]

Bible quotes

Genesis, 7:11

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the Mountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Translation: The sky has windows.

Reality: The sky is nothing but a vacuum. It does not have windows. But the holy bible states that the windows of the sky were opened.

Joshua 10:13

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

Translation: The sun, not the Earth, moves.

Reality: The Earth rotates around the Sun, not the other way around.

Lake 4:33

"And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice.”

Mark 1:34

"And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.”

Translation: diseases are caused by the devil.

Reality: diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses.

In short, the bible is really a fairytale. You can believe it if you want, but if you try and justify it with science - you'll look silly.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Sleipnir]

atheism..... evolution.... origin of life....

These three things are all different. You don't seem to be able to draw distinctions between three very different concepts.

Sheesh no kidding lol

[Mighty AC]

I'm an atheist, I agreed little with Christopher hitchens found him politically distasteful ....i do like richard Dawkins but disagree with his being open to the possibility of a god...one size does not fit all when it comes to atheists, the only thing we all have in common is our atheism...

Dawkins simply said we cannot prove the negative so a god is possible, but very unlikely. His exact quote: “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low.”

[wyly]

Dawkins simply said we cannot prove the negative so a god is possible, but very unlikely. His exact quote: “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low.”

Dawkins is true to scientific approach addressing probability and very diplomatic too...I'm not very diplomatic when it comes to fairy tales and the probability is so low as to be non-existent IMO...

[Sleipnir]

Dawkins simply said we cannot prove the negative so a god is possible, but very unlikely. His exact quote: “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low.”

Nothing in nature is absolute, as an example nothing in the universe is absolutely 1 centimeter. Which is why Dawkins said the odds are very very low.

[cybercoma]

Dawkins simply said we cannot prove the negative so a god is possible, but very unlikely. His exact quote: “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low.”

But the world is so much easier to understand when you deal with binaries. What's this crap about probabilistic rationality?