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.
Not really interested in any supernatural explanations until you can produce some reliable evidence that there even is such a thing as "supernatural".
The bible contradicts many known, observed, and understood properties of reality therefore it is wrong(in the places it is in conflict). Unless you can somehow show that reality operates in an entirely different fashion than it clearly does.
So does the atheistic notion of abiogenesis. But people still believe that life started from non-life by random chance.
Quote:
This is not to say that there are not any correct historical facts in the bible, but in the places where it conflicts with our knowledge of reality, reality wins.
If only you applied that same logic to the things you have faith in.
But that's the attitude your ilk gives off here. You know it all, the book is closed, and anyone who dares suggest otherwise should be branded and labeled as ignorant.
Actually, that would be THE very definition of biblical literalists. To a "T."
On the other hand, you make claims like this all the time, and then have several people respond to you showing what you claim plainly isn't true (happened several times already today) and then turn around and make the same baseless claim.
In fact, you HAVE said the exact same things you are accusing others of (in what I quoted above) over and over. And when I or anyone else points out this is hypocritical of you, that is met with something along the lines of "You just don't like that I know the truth! Sure, call my a hypocrite--insults are all you have! that's how intolerant you god-haters are" or some other pathetic fluff.
Quote:
I even brought up yesterday how science has failed to explained with evidence how man went from grunts and noises to complex languages. The response arrogantly was that I was stupid and ignorant. Yet no one offered proof to the contrary.
I don't recall any such basely insulting insulting comments that weren't at least accompanied by explanations of how etymology and language-study works, what it has uncovered, as well as what it has not, and why. I responded in such a way (minus insults) myself.
I believe you are just so ingrained in your biases and so hell-bent on being right at the exclusion of any and all other possibilities, to your very shallow world view and very, very weak faith, that anything you hear that might run counter to those things, no matter how reasoned, just sounds to you like "Blah blah blah you're stupid! Blah blah blah there's no god! Blah blah blah we hate believers!" and so on.
So does the atheistic notion of abiogenesis. But people still believe that life started from non-life by random chance.
If only you applied that same logic to the things you have faith in.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis not a theory. It is accepted as a strong possibility due to the fact that it does not conflict with the way we observe reality functioning. There have been experiments that confirm predictions derived from it which lend some credence to it, however it is not settled science by any means so quibbling over it is pointless. This is not to say that I have a "belief" in it. I see it as a strong potential possibility for the origin of life on earth, but it is not the only possibility.
I do apply that logic to everything I believe it. I love being proved wrong because it offers me an opportunity to refine my beliefs and knowledge. It is far more important to learn from your mistakes than it is to be capital R "Right" all the time.
If abiogenesis was proven wrong tomorrow it would be no skin off my back. In fact I would welcome it in the same way as if it was proven true tomorrow. Either way my knowledge increases so its a net gain.
Biblical descriptions can be discarded because (unlike abiogenesis) they conflict with the way we observe reality operating. At least as long as you assume that we are not all brains in jars and the universe is an illusion created last Thursday.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 07-15-2016 at 10:57 AM..
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis not a theory. It is accepted as a strong possibility due to the fact that it does not conflict with the way we observe reality functioning. There have been experiments that confirm predictions derived from it which lend some credence to it, however it is not settled science by any means so quibbling over it is pointless. This is not to say that I have a "belief" in it. I see it as a strong potential possibility for the origin of life on earth, but it is not the only possibility.
It violates so many things that science knows to be true. Yet, people are willing to give it a pass.
Quote:
I do apply that logic to everything I believe it. I love being proved wrong because it offers me an opportunity to refine my beliefs and knowledge. It is far more important to learn from your mistakes than it is to be capital R Right all the time.
Not abiogenesis, you don't.
Quote:
If abiogenesis was proven wrong tomorrow it would be no skin off my back. In fact I would welcome it in the same way as if it was proven true tomorrow. Either way my knowledge increases so its a net gain.
Yet, you won't consider another possibility.
Quote:
Biblical descriptions can be discarded because (unlike abiogenesis) they conflict with the way we observe reality operating. At least as long as you assume that we are not all brains in jars and the universe is an illusion created last Thursday.
Nonsense. Creationism is every bit as compatible with what we know to be true in the scientific world as abiogenesis is.
It violates so many things that science knows to be true. Yet, people are willing to give it a pass.
Not abiogenesis, you don't.
Yet, you won't consider another possibility.
Nonsense. Creationism is every bit as compatible with what we know to be true in the scientific world as abiogenesis is.
Can you name the specific scientific principles violated by the abiogenesis hypothesis and why it is a violation(just one would be fine)?
Yes abiogenesis, I do.
Yes I consider all kinds of possibilities. If you do not believe me, try submitting a hypothesis that does not violate known properties of our universe and we can discuss it.
Creationism as in a big D Deism creator that kicked everything off and then sat back and watched is not incompatible with our current scientific knowledge, it does not provide any kind of explanatory or predictive framework(unlike abiogenesis, which does provide explanatory and predictive benefits) but it is at least compatible.
Creationism as in big B Bible creationism is NOT compatible with what we know of science because it claims events that are not scientifically possible. For example the Genesis creation account conflicts with the known order of the emergence of species.
Sorry for not using the quote feature in my response as well as you did, I just started using this forum yesterday. Do you just copy paste the start/end tags around to separate em out?
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 07-15-2016 at 11:13 AM..
Yes, in case you missed it, Norne was talking about Adam and Eve and the earth's problems associated with their sin. You brought up the flood which was unassociated with what he said.
Two fictional characters from a book written by Bronze Age goat-herders?
Quote:
The Bible gives us the future of those children, how they will be saved. Buddha does not.
Life does not come from non-life. That's a big one.
That is not a scientific principle it is a colloquialism invented by creationists. There are no scientific theories that state that it is impossible for life to come from non life. Try again.
That is not a scientific principle it is a colloquialism invented by creationists. There are no scientific theories that state that it is impossible for life to come from non life. Try again.
Likewise, any limitation you put on the topic of God is merely a colloquialism invented by scientists. The fact is, you really don't know HOW the universe started, or how life began, but you are unwilling to consider all options.
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.
