Age of the world

[supersurfer]

And that is where we depart. If the Bible, any part of it, is not true and cannot be believed, then what parts do you believe? Who chooses? Each person? Where does that lead? Not to faith.

Who wouldn't believe in talking animals, original sin, chariots racing through the sky, and a talking bush?

Who can't accept that all laws of the universe were suspended so that the sun could stand still in the sky?

Hell the Bible has got to be true, it's just has to.

Faith is just that, believing when there is no logical reason of man to believe.

You've said quite a mouthful there. Let's take out the "of man" part and I'll agree with you 100%

The old Christian riddle is true.
      How much faith does an angel have?
      None.
      They don't need any. They live before the face of God.

More of that good old Bible folklore... Umm truth.

You don't need faith for things you can prove or see. You need faith for what you can't see or prove.

Remember what Jesus said to Thomas.I didn't see, but I believe. I don't have to decide what verse is right or what verse is "wrong." I just accept by faith that the Bible is the word of God and therefore all of it is right and true. Simple. Easy. Not smart by man's standards, but that is OK.

You said it yourself. Let's all throw reason and logic out the window and become idiots.

 

[bcp]

Who wouldn't believe in talking animals, original sin, chariots racing through the sky, and a talking bush?

I guess these would be the same people many years ago that thought air flight, automatic doors, automobiles, electricity, etc.. to be things of the over worked mind.
Think about it, back in the early days of even star trek, they had these really cool doors that would open as soon as someone walked up to them. who would have thought that that would ever really be possible..

lets not even talk about having a conversation with someone thousands of miles away using nothing more than the airwaves. thats just beyond all reason and logic.

You said it yourself. Let's all throw reason and logic out the window and become idiots.

but at least you are open minded and respect the rights of others to think for themselves.

 

[wxtornado]

And there is fossil evidence that scientists will not regard because they contradict their preconceived notions.

2A, I guess you aren't going to back up this statement by citing your source.

Scientific fraud cannot last very long under the scientific process. Someone will come along, test the results, and not get the same answer. It's why science is so successful.

Religion, on the other hand, deals in untestable absolutes that people cling to with a voracious blindness. Nothing -- no amount of proof, no evidence to the contrary, nothing, absolutely nothing will shake them from his entrenched, unmovable dogma. For people like this, the best "approach" is to try to paint competitive ideas -- even ones like those of science that are literally staggering under mountains of verifiable, tested, and corrborated evidence -- as "fraudulent".

I remember the 500 mpg carburetor. And the "perpetual motion machine" and table-top cold fusion claims. All were frauds, all were discovered, all have been discarded-- and these events serve as reminders to scientists to not just take things on faith, but to tighten their disciplines, and make sure they are sure. And still mistakes will be made, unvcovered, and put aside so successes can continually be built. That's what makes science so awe-inspiring. It grows as much from it's failures as it does from it's successes.

But religions are insulated from this because they self-define as untestable. Now, they aren't really untestable. They simply self-define that way in order to be "fool-proof". One could easily test the tenets of Christianity by simply following what Jesus says,for instance, about calling out to a mountain and telling it to move, and if you have even a grain of fiath, it will move.

Of course, the theists are immediately reduced to amusing verbal gymnastics when you confront them on such things, but in the end, it's all dreary and it's the same sing-song. The best approach is to thank them for their dismissal of science, and thank them for their posts authored on computers and delivered via the internet, all of which rests 100% on the science they say is suspect.

 

[Toxick]

How about that 55 million year old polar tropical forest they just trumpetted this past week....DID ANYONE--hear what their dating method was?

I didn't even hear about the discovery. Got a link or two?

I know why they aren't talking.

Do tell.

 

[Toxick]

But religions are insulated from this because they self-define as untestable. Now, they aren't really untestable. They simply self-define that way in order to be "fool-proof".

You know - no matter how many times I hear this argument, it never gets old.

Exactly how many times can one read the same argument before actually imploding?

The best approach is to thank them for their dismissal of science, and thank them for their posts authored on computers and delivered via the internet, all of which rests 100% on the science they say is suspect.

Not all theists dismiss science.

In fact, some of them believe that Science was created by God, who has thus far put it to good use in the creation and maintenance of the universe.

And not all scientists dismiss religion as a flight of fancy. Some of them see evidence of divinity every day, and base their beliefs not in blind faith, but from reason.

 

[tirdun]

As long as scientists are willing to believe in the continuity of radioctive isotope decay as a constant...um, they are denying other physical evidence that points to massive cataclism (sp) & major alterations of isotope debris.

I challenge you to produce that evidence.

There is no scientific reason to assume that isotope decay has changed significantly at any time, anywhere in the history of the universe. The few means by which isotopic decay can alter are well understood and are accounted for in dating systems. Astronomical measurments show clear signs of known isotopic decay millions of years ago.

How about that 55 million year old polar tropical forest they just trumpetted this past week....DID ANYONE--hear what their dating method was? Anybody?

I assume you mean
this one

I know why they aren't talking.

They have a web site and produce technical papers, how is this "not talking"?

 

[wxtornado]

You know - no matter how many times I hear this argument, it never gets old.

Exactly how many times can one read the same argument before actually imploding?

Not unlike one reading the theists invoke Pascal's Wager - make's your head want to explode, no?

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A, I guess you aren't going to back up this statement by citing your source.

Try these. http://drdino.com/articles.php?cat=5
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=37
I suspect you will disregard them, but hey, your choice.

Scientific fraud cannot last very long under the scientific process. Someone will come along, test the results, and not get the same answer. It's why science is so successful.....

Yeah. Like flat earth, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and the other make believe scientific stuff that was absolute scientific truth.

Every time man has set out to prove that an event or some historical event in the Bible is wrong, it has been the man that has been proved wrong.

 

[Toxick]

Not unlike one reading the theists invoke Pascal's Wager - make's your head want to explode, no?

It is my contention that Pascal's Wager is the absolute worst possible reason to believe in any deity.

It's gutless, brainless and disingenuous.

IMO, fear of punishment is not an adequate substitute for sincere belief.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It is my contention that Pascal's Wager is the absolute worst possible reason to believe in any deity.

It's gutless, brainless and disingenuous.

IMO, fear of punishment is not an adequate substitute for sincere belief.

Fear of punishment is often the only thing some people will respond to. God has presented His plan of salvation and reasons to accept Him and His plan in every way possible including fear of punishment in order to appeal to as many as possible so none might be lost.

It is against spiritual beings that Christians war. Those that spout so vehemently against the Bible and find any reason to refute God and try to make Jesus less than He is are often really spiritual beings cast down from heaven appearing as ordinary men and women with extremely compelling reasoning by man's standards in order to deceive and lead into destruction all the people they can. May God rebuke them and protect those that seek His Truth.

 

[supersurfer]

Not all theists dismiss science.

In fact, some of them believe that Science was created by God, who has thus far put it to good use in the creation and maintenance of the universe.

And not all scientists dismiss religion as a flight of fancy. Some of them see evidence of divinity every day, and base their beliefs not in blind faith, but from reason.

Yeah, it's called Psuedo Science.

 

[supersurfer]

Try these. http://drdino.com/articles.php?cat=5
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=37
I suspect you will disregard them, but hey, your choice.

Yeah. Like flat earth, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and the other make believe scientific stuff that was absolute scientific truth.

Every time man has set out to prove that an event or some historical event in the Bible is wrong, it has been the man that has been proved wrong.

I knew that you were a Kent Hovind nut. You better go check his online degree.

 

[Toxick]

Fear of punishment is often the only thing some people will respond to.

Agreed.

But IMO it's still a gutless choice. "I'm afraid that I MIGHT go to hell, therefore I will force myself to accept Jesus". Not only is it gutless, but it's superfiscial and transparent.

Forced faith is not really faith IMO. It's merely lip service.

I think God deserves better.

 

[supersurfer]

It is against spiritual beings that Christians war. Those that spout so vehemently against the Bible and find any reason to refute God and try to make Jesus less than He is are often really spiritual beings cast down from heaven appearing as ordinary men and women with extremely compelling reasoning by man's standards in order to deceive and lead into destruction all the people they can.

Wow, I'm a spiritual being cast down from heaven. I must have missed that part of my life.

2A, you were dead before you were born into this world, guess what you're gonna be when you die. Dead! Lay down the ego of wanting to live forever, it isn't going to happen.

 

[wxtornado]

Yeah. Like flat earth, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and the other make believe scientific stuff that was absolute scientific truth.

Piltdown man and Nebraska Man are good examples of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Piltdown man and Nebraska Man are good examples of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.

Ah. But teachers were still quoting Piltdown man after the hoax had been exposed. Even the Smithsonian exhibit of early man still had Piltdown in its exhibit after the hoax had been exposed. And the damage of Nebraska man had already been done since it was the Nebraska man "evidence" that was used in the Scopes trial.

I don't see that as working well.

You go ahead and rely on the ever changing "wisdom" of man, and I will rely on the word of God.

 

[rraley]

I clicked on 2A's links and found an article that says the Great Flood of Noah was the cause of rapid fossilization. The article contends that Noah's flood lasted for a year. But doesn't that statement itself conflict with the Bible, which (metaphorically, but nothing is metaphorical in the Bible according to the ever-righteous 2A) states that Noah's float lasted for forty days and forty nights? It seems like the author of the article is "picking and choosing" the Truth as 2A contends that I am doing.

Once again, the Bible is metaphorical and it is meant to convey existential truth as opposed to concrete historical fact. It leads to a deeper understanding of God and Jesus as the Savior. If you look at it like a book report or a newspaper article, well you aren't getting the full effect.

 

[wxtornado]

Ah. But teachers were still quoting Piltdown man after the hoax had been exposed. Even the Smithsonian exhibit of early man still had Piltdown in its exhibit after the hoax had been exposed. And the damage of Nebraska man had already been done since it was the Nebraska man "evidence" that was used in the Scopes trial.

I don't see that as working well.

You go ahead and rely on the ever changing "wisdom" of man, and I will rely on the word of God.

Science stands or falls on the facts and evidence that support it, not on what is taught, who relies on it, or who believes it.

 

[wxtornado]

I clicked on 2A's links and found an article that says the Great Flood of Noah was the cause of rapid fossilization. The article contends that Noah's flood lasted for a year. But doesn't that statement itself conflict with the Bible, which (metaphorically, but nothing is metaphorical in the Bible according to the ever-righteous 2A) states that Noah's float lasted for forty days and forty nights? It seems like the author of the article is "picking and choosing" the Truth as 2A contends that I am doing.

Once again, the Bible is metaphorical and it is meant to convey existential truth as opposed to concrete historical fact. It leads to a deeper understanding of God and Jesus as the Savior. If you look at it like a book report or a newspaper article, well you aren't getting the full effect.

The mother of all floods - there's another topic that could fill a thread......

 

[supersurfer]

The mother of all floods - there's another topic that could fill a thread......

What's really interesting is how God seemed to kill off all the other fish and birds that Noah didn't take into the ark.