Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't believe the Bible is being confirmed by historical discoveries. I would suggest you consider going back to school. Not all science is bad. It is the science of speculation I have a problem with. The speculation that throws out dates of millions of years. When such time testing has been proven wrong so many times. Such dates are not confirmed, they are assumed.
The Bible date of the exodus to a time after the Philistine settlements is clearly wrong. Dating of Daniel to Persian times is demonstrably wrong.
And I hardly need to point out to you the falsity of the dating of the nativity.
I can only assume that you have gone into denial about all of that and restate the bland and false claim that Bible dating has never been disproved.
Like the dating of rocks, mans attempt to try and date the events of the Bible can be equally wrong. Anytime you add the human element you are subject to error. The rocks have fixed dates, and so does the accounts spoken of in the Bible. Some Bible believers will tell you the earth is 6,000 years old, and others will tell you it is 12,000 years old. Add the human element and often you will have a problem. It is not that the Bible is wrong. It is how people view it. Just as how some view the dating of rocks. What is most important is not knowing the exact date, but like in the case of the Exodus. Having the evidence that shows us it really did happen.
Like the dating of rocks, mans attempt to try and date the events of the Bible can be equally wrong. Anytime you add the human element you are subject to error. The rocks have fixed dates, and so does the accounts spoken of in the Bible. Some Bible believers will tell you the earth is 6,000 years old, and others will tell you it is 12,000 years old. Add the human element and often you will have a problem. It is not that the Bible is wrong. It is how people view it. Just as how some view the dating of rocks. What is most important is not knowing the exact date, but like in the case of the Exodus. Having the evidence that shows us it really did happen.
This is true. There are going to be disagreements about dating rocks and disagreements about the date of YE Creation.
But it's not about dates, is it, it's about feasibility and evidence and, so far, the feasibility and evidence has all been on the side of the rocks, not on the side of the Bible.
I know your are in denial about this, but, apart from the very dubious NAMI ark find and the equally dubious Ica stones and the highly dubious shruddd and the extremely dubious Wyatt- Moller Exodus landmarks, you haven't been able to ...ok you have held ground on the Jewish state..ok, ok...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-20-2010 at 10:12 AM..
It is saying that science cannot and should not be allowed to answer these questions that dishonours or minds and the suggestion that 'goddunnit' is the only answer we need dishonours nature. Understanding the workings of nature is what science does and honours it. Seeing nature as nothing more than a neon billboard advertising a huge invisible human who waves his want to make everything happen is dishonouring nature and our minds, too.
It seems like you're the one trying to assign a "nothing more" explanation to nature and reality. You seem to think our experiences are nothing more than the inevitable consequences materialistic determinism.
I don't say that the answers science gives are wrong, just that they're incomplete. Religion's answers without science are incomplete as well. The answers agnostic spritualists come up with based on emotion and intuition are incomplete as well. We need to use all of our available forms of reasoning if we want to understand the world and our place in it. That starts with recognizing the validity of those forms of reasoning.
As a society we are doing this anyway (in fits and starts), but when an individual can do it, they gain a power and insight neither science nor religion alone could ever give.
This is true. There are going to be disagreements about dating rocks and disagreements about the date of YE Creation.
But it's not about dates, is it, it's about feasibility and evidence and, so far, the feasibility and evidence has all been on the side of the rocks, not on the side of the Bible.
I know your are in denial about this, but, apart from the very dubious NAMI ark find and the equally dubious Ica stones and the highly dubious shruddd and the extremely dubious Wyatt- Moller Exodus landmarks, you haven't been able to ...ok you have held ground on the Jewish state..ok, ok...
Of course you may believe the feasibility of the evidence points only to an old earth, because you have never consider the evidence from the other side.
It seems like you're the one trying to assign a "nothing more" explanation to nature and reality. You seem to think our experiences are nothing more than the inevitable consequences materialistic determinism.
I don't say that the answers science gives are wrong, just that they're incomplete. Religion's answers without science are incomplete as well. The answers agnostic spritualists come up with based on emotion and intuition are incomplete as well. We need to use all of our available forms of reasoning if we want to understand the world and our place in it. That starts with recognizing the validity of those forms of reasoning.
As a society we are doing this anyway (in fits and starts), but when an individual can do it, they gain a power and insight neither science nor religion alone could ever give.
Science doesn't know everything, eh? Well, it doesn't. But if so nobody does. The point is that, what science doesn't know, nobody knows so there is no cause to regard any theories and speculations as anything more than interesting lines of enquiry. To expect that such speculations be regarded a reliable fact because one wants to or uses the very questionable claims of personal revelation to justify Faith in those speculation is foolish.
This idea of a mix of verified science and filling the empty gaps with unverified beliefs claimed as facts is pretty abominable. I know it is frustrating to have to admit we don't know and it is very nice to feel that you have been vouchsafed the answers by some invisible power, (especially as it seems to match other answers by other people - if one overlooks the differences) but it really is asking to be fooled. It really is taking the preferred theory as fact and dismissing all the other possible explanations.
It is closing the mind to any subsequent information or data which brings those preferred speculations into question and that is just what we find religion doing with science from archaeology to evolution. And often looking very silly in the process.
Science doesn't know everything but by now its track record on fact - finding should have earned it some credit.
Of course you may believe the feasibility of the evidence points only to an old earth, because you have never consider the evidence from the other side.
Whoa!...Do you actually believe all the crap on those sites? Amazing!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
