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.
.....What is not valid in my opinion is a few people pretending that SCIENCE supports their minority belief or disbelief or opinion or whatever when it clearly does not. To my knowledge no reputable scientist has ever designed a valid experiment to either prove or disprove the existence of God. They know better than to try to do that, science is not equipped to explore spiritual things.......
Absolutely agreed.
However, somethings to keep in mind.
Science disproves each and every myth associated with Jehovah in the bible, and much of said manuscript as well.
"Biblical scientists", from biblical archeology to todays pseudoscientists like Behe, have been attempting to prove the bible accurate and infallable for 2 millenia, and have Epic Failed at every turn.
1. Denial? Indeed, which can be said about ANY Creationist.
I agree about your myth-bound Creationists . . . but not about YOUR generic "creationists" . . . who are known more correctly as theists or deists.
Quote:
2. Are you going to claim "logic" as proof of your Creator Deity now? This should be fun.
No . . . just reject your asinine illogic in attributing the existence or non-existence of ANYTHING to specific human beliefs . . . like religion.
Quote:
3. Well I guess the entire scientific field, through peer reviewed sciences, are bigoted towards your Jesuit then as well.
Absent the remotest sign that you possess ANY knowledge of the peer-reviewed field of astrophysics . . and there is NONE! . . . this claim is outrageous and definitely bigoted.
The bible has been proven wrong on so many counts, from being self-contradictory to mistatments of history to each and every last myth and miracle being disproven, that it equates to nothing more than a poorly written fantasy novel.
Well, for someone who places great value on using the scientific method and tools in order to PROVE something, I'm going to ask you for a link to the experiments you're referring to that "prove" the bible to be "wrong."
I do admit though that there are contradictions in the books of the bible, and many ways to interpret many of the paragraphs the ancient authors independently wrote. Is it interpretations you have "proven" to be "myth" and "fantasy", or the most ancient documents available today from which the translations came?
By the way, those "mistatements of history" you refer to would be because you prefer certain ancient writers over other ancient writers? Is that correct? (E.g. Josephus writes something that seems to contradict something Paul wrote, so in your mind Paul is automatically wrong?)
Once again KC, I am NOT opposed to science or scientists, I value and benefit from both!
No one says you are. We just disagree on the utility of using faith - a method that is shown to be inaccurate and which produces contradictory results based on the biases of the people using.
Quote:
They know better than to try to do that, science is not equipped to explore spiritual things.
From the looks of it, nothing else is either. That's assuming you want reliable answers from your explanation, that is, since your approach seems to change based on the answers you need to confirm your religious faith. From the outside, it looks like you're rationalizing as you go rather than providing any sort of useful way to explore the unknown.
Quote:
Religion has its own methods and 'tools' to detect and to communicate with God. It's likely that most theists recognize the folly of trying to do that with technology.
Yes, since being consistent and using the same approach as we use on everything else would produce no result. That puts gods and ghosts and magic and whatever in the same category as other things which appear not to exist. So instead, we get all sorts of ad hoc approaches to get a more acceptable answer - only these methods themselves don't work when used consistently. This is why I keep pointing out how if you followed the method you claimed everyone else should, you'd be Catholic.
Quote:
So, enough of the science thing as far as I am concerned, science is just a moot invalid point in discussions about God and other religious/spiritual matters.
You probably should have picked a different thread. This one is supposed to be about evidence for creationism - a religious belief which claims to be scientific evidence of god and its actions in creating the universe.
Quote:
And please don't come back once again with glowing praises for science and the 'superiority' of the intellect. Those are wonderful things, they benefit all of us greatly when it comes to secular things, interacting with the physical world around us.
I can see why you'd prefer not to compare it to the track record faith has generating useful information about the world.
Quote:
I just don't think that injecting science into the discussion is valid on either side of a discussion about God and religious matters.
Which is why you brought up recent scientific evidence about human ancestry?
What science can and does prove is that the proposed biblical stories, in their absolute forms, are implausible or technically impossible. In some cases, such as the stated and biblically mandated age of this earth, or the order in which certain things happened, is simply, honestly and logically not the way it happened. That's been proved. As in: fact.
Those scientific "facts" though stubborn aren't always written in stone, as history reveals over and over again.
Assuming that carbon dating or whatever the latest equivalent is labelled is correct and the earth has been 'proven' by science to be x zillions or whatever years old:
What you are comparing that to in the bible is someone's interpretation of what the original ancient author of that book of the bible intended to convey.
Below is another way (another interpretation) of looking at creation from a Christian point of view. Note that the concept of "ordered periods of time" and that the account refers to not one but two creations, the first one being spiritual only, does not necessarily conflict with those "facts" you refer to. The earth could indeed be more than 6,000 years old and the bible still be accurate in the accounting of creation.
"Each phase of the Creation was well planned before it was accomplished. Scripture tells us that “the Lord God, created all things … spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.”
The physical Creation itself was staged through ordered periods of time. In Genesis and Moses, those periods are called days. But in the book of Abraham, each period is referred to as a time. Whether termed a day, a time, or an age, each phase was a period between two identifiable events—a division of eternity.
Period one included the creation of atmospheric heavens and physical earth, culminating in the emergence of light from darkness.
In period two, the waters were divided between the surface of the earth and its atmospheric heavens. Provision was made for clouds and rain to give life to all that would later dwell upon the earth.
In period three, plant life began. The earth was organized to bring forth grass, herbs, trees, and vegetation—each growing from its own seed.
Period four was a time of further development. Lights in the expanse of the heaven were organized so there could be seasons and other means of measuring time. During this period, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth were placed in proper relationship to one another. The sun, with its vast stores of hydrogen, was to serve as a giant furnace to provide light and heat for the earth and life upon it.
In period five, fish, fowl, and “every living creature” were added. They were made fruitful and able to multiply—in the sea and on the earth—each after its own kind.
In the sixth period, creation of life continued. The beasts of the earth were made after their kind, cattle after their kind, and everything which “creepeth upon the earth”—again, after its own kind. Then the Gods counseled together and said: “Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness. …
“So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.” Thus, Adam and Eve were formed. And they were blessed to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
The seventh period was designated as a time of rest."
Those scientific "facts" though stubborn aren't always written in stone, as history reveals over and over again.
Assuming that carbon dating or whatever the latest equivalent is labelled is correct and the earth has been 'proven' by science to be x zillions or whatever years old:
What you are comparing that to in the bible is someone's interpretation of what the original ancient author of that book of the bible intended to convey.
Below is another way (another interpretation) of looking at creation from a Christian point of view. Note that the concept of "ordered periods of time" and that the account refers to not one but two creations, the first one being spiritual only, does not necessarily conflict with those "facts" you refer to. The earth could indeed be more than 6,000 years old and the bible still be accurate in the accounting of creation.
Quote:
"Each phase of the Creation was well planned before it was accomplished. Scripture tells us that “the Lord God, created all things … spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.â€
Unprovable, and just religious rationalizing in my opinion.
Quote:
The physical Creation itself was staged through ordered periods of time. In Genesis and Moses, those periods are called days. But in the book of Abraham, each period is referred to as a time. Whether termed a day, a time, or an age, each phase was a period between two identifiable events—a division of eternity.
More of the same.
Quote:
Period one included the creation of atmospheric heavens and physical earth, culminating in the emergence of light from darkness.
Light from darkness? Don't you see how silly that phrase is?
Quote:
In period two, the waters were divided between the surface of the earth and its atmospheric heavens. Provision was made for clouds and rain to give life to all that would later dwell upon the earth.
I'm not even sure what this means....Is it the ancient belief that there was a dome of water above?
Quote:
In period three, plant life began. The earth was organized to bring forth grass, herbs, trees, and vegetation—each growing from its own seed
God was getting ahead of himself was he? Plant life would not be possible before the conditions of period four were met.
Quote:
Period four was a time of further development. Lights in the expanse of the heaven were organized so there could be seasons and other means of measuring time. During this period, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth were placed in proper relationship to one another. The sun, with its vast stores of hydrogen, was to serve as a giant furnace to provide light and heat for the earth and life upon it.
Are you telling me that this is actually in the bible? The sun and it's vast stores of hydrogen? Come on.
Quote:
In period five, fish, fowl, and “every living creature†were added. They were made fruitful and able to multiply—in the sea and on the earth—each after its own kind.
There is that word again...Each after it's own "kind". can you tell me what that means?
Quote:
In the sixth period, creation of life continued. The beasts of the earth were made after their kind, cattle after their kind, and everything which “creepeth upon the earthâ€â€”again, after its own kind. Then the Gods counseled together and said: “Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness. …
The gods? how many were there at this grand meeting? Tell me how many of each creature do you think god created? More that two I hope.
Quote:
“So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.†Thus, Adam and Eve were formed. And they were blessed to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.â€
Two things I take issue with here. 1. By creating only two humans ( instantly fully grown and able to communicate) he doomed mankind to extinction. Two of any mammal cannot populate anything...Oops, I forgot about the majik.
2. Man has only recently risen to the top of the food chain...Thousands of years ago he was running for his life and hiding in caves and trees to avoid predators...He was on the menu of many, and in some parts of the world still is. He did not have "dominion over every creature", but was killed and eaten by many predators.
Quote:
The seventh period was designated as a time of rest."
Guess he was pooped from all that poofing huh? Honestly, do you not see this for what it is? One of ancient man's attempts to understand what was around him and where it all came from....Majik was big in those days, but many of us have moved on...I am amazed at how many are still stuck on the beliefs of the past....Must be that carrot and stick approach of religion. News flash for you....There is no carrot or stick. It's just an ancient fable.
I agree about your myth-bound Creationists . . . but not about YOUR generic "creationists" . . . who are known more correctly as theists or deists. No . . . just reject your asinine illogic in attributing the existence or non-existence of ANYTHING to specific human beliefs . . . like religion. Absent the remotest sign that you possess ANY knowledge of the peer-reviewed field of astrophysics . . and there is NONE! . . . this claim is outrageous and definitely bigoted.
1. I am a Theist, but I am not a Creationist, however. Sorry, but you can't expect the entire world to use your personal lexicon.
2. The only basis for ANY creator deity is religion. There simply is no hard, physical evidence suggesting some creator deity is behind the Universe. Sorry, but "becasue the Universe is there" isn;t evidence. Logic can certainly suggest hypothesis, but logic cannot be used to prove the existance of something.
3. The entire premise forwarded by the Jesuit falls into the "becasue it's there" catagory. And feel free to show where I claim any expertise in astrophysics. I utilize the findings of learned men who DO have expertise in that field.
Well, for someone who places great value on using the scientific method and tools in order to PROVE something, I'm going to ask you for a link to the experiments you're referring to that "prove" the bible to be "wrong."
I do admit though that there are contradictions in the books of the bible, and many ways to interpret many of the paragraphs the ancient authors independently wrote. Is it interpretations you have "proven" to be "myth" and "fantasy", or the most ancient documents available today from which the translations came?
By the way, those "mistatements of history" you refer to would be because you prefer certain ancient writers over other ancient writers? Is that correct? (E.g. Josephus writes something that seems to contradict something Paul wrote, so in your mind Paul is automatically wrong?)
A few examples, to keep the post short...
Genesis, disproven not only to the self-contradictory nature of the book, but the simple fact that it contradicts scientific knowledge. For example, we know life started in the seas, not with plant life on dry ground as it states in the bible.
And let us not forget the entire Flood Myth either. There simply is not enough water on the planet to compeltely inundate the surface, the dimensions decribed for the ark are simply beyond the structural capacity of wood, and there simply isn't any way one is going to fit tens of millions of creatures, their feed for decades including fresh meat, and enough plant seed to repopulate the Earth's flora on any form of craft anyways.
Are there specific experiments to disprove the myths of the bible. No, but science does disprove the bible without even directly addressing each and every myth, which I find quite elequent to be frank.
.....By the way, those "mistatements of history" you refer to would be because you prefer certain ancient writers over other ancient writers? Is that correct? (E.g. Josephus writes something that seems to contradict something Paul wrote, so in your mind Paul is automatically wrong?)
Firstly, please don't pretend to tell me my own beliefs. My views have been formed over many decades by research on the matter.
Secondly, Josephus has been proven to be a fraud. Doesn this prove Paul to be as well? Newp, Paul does a dandy job all on his own. Josepsus proven a fraud merely eliminates that venue as any possible corraberating archival "evidence" for a hsitorical Jesus.
Lastly, when ancient writtings are shown to be frauds, whether through examination of the style of writting and the words used, they can indeed be dismissed as any form of evidence whatsoever.
Science disproves each and every myth associated with Jehovah in the bible, and much of said manuscript as well.
"Biblical scientists", from biblical archeology to todays pseudoscientists like Behe, have been attempting to prove the bible accurate and infallable for 2 millenia, and have Epic Failed at every turn.
I guess I haven't been reading what "science" has to say about Jehovah. But if what they have to say is actually reliable, valid, and properly peer reviewed then maybe they've been able to convince a few people such as yourself who were already disbelievers. I don't think people are abandoning churches and religious beliefs because of whatever studies you are referring to.
I notice that you accept the negative conclusions about the bible with a vague reference to "science" but apparently others who have a different point of view than you have, or start their research from one, are just "pseudoscientists" to you?
But although I am not familiar with "Behe" and the "biblical scientists" you refer to it is my opinion that if they are attempting to prove the bible true using science I don't wonder they are having difficulty. As far as I am concerned the proper context in which to study Religion is Religion, not Science. But my guess is that you will disagree.
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.
