The problem with that is, the ten year difference may be wrong information.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
The problem with that is, the ten year difference may be wrong information.
We have only wishful thinking, no real scientific evidence.
And you can believe people waited over 100 000 years before they begun to write?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes. Wrong information n the Bible. This error is based on well recorded history. You have to deny history to believe the Bible. And of course you have to deny science if you want to believe the myths of Genesis.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, and you just demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. I could help you to learn, but then you would have to lie to say that there is no evidence for evolution and claiming that there was evidence for creationism would be likely a lie too. Are you brave enough to learn?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They did not wait. That was a silly statement. They did not know. Writing had to be invented. And it could not even begin to be invented until there was a clear need for it.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
There isn't really much of an argument here. All the evidence/modelling suggests gravitational planetary accretion of debris from a solar nebula. The other side of the "argument" seems to be little more than "No it didn't, god created it in six days".
Perhaps not, but science can point out errors in scripture.
Maybe not, but it can explain them.
What's more, religious scripture is a very poor source of morals. The Abrahamic god permits or prescribes quite a bit of stuff that is now with immoral and illegal.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
It is more reasonable to accept that science may arrive at explanations for the presently unknown, that to claim that it never will.
You keep repeating this vague and inaccurate claim, despite it being explained to you how science can and does address the issue of the supernatural.
One might think that you are not debating in good faith, or even honestly.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So presumably you have difficulty in believing the claims of religion as they are just opinions that have not been proven to be true.
But there are "products of science" that refute religion. The formation of the universe and earth. The evolution of life. The fact the great flood did not happen, and other historical/archaeological anomalies.
Your refusal to accept them doesn't make them go away.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
It baffles me why people with literally no idea about evolution or the theory explaining it feel qualified to make such ridiculous nonsense claims.
We can observe evolution happening in the lab in species with very fast reproduction cycles. Google Lenski's e.coli experiment.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So you don't subscribe to the idea that the universe and life within it was created by some manner of god or supernatural being. Instead, you accept the evidence that suggests natural processes such as evolution.
Cool.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
That's like saying babies wait a year before they walk.
Writing began to develop when there was both the need and the ability to do it. Early humans didn't sit around the fire saying "I wish someone would hurry up and invent writing. I could murder a good book!"
Come on, it's not rocket science.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
"Laboratory experiments of speciation have been conducted for all four modes of speciation: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric; and various other processes involving speciation: hybridization, reinforcement, founder effects, among others. Most of the experiments have been done on flies, in particular Drosophila fruit flies."
The only ridiculous and stupid assertion I see is your asinine analogy, and as fascinating as your observations are, I will accept the scientific evidence over anecdotal denials.
No it wouldn't that's a fantasy straw man you've created.
The evidence is overwhelming, and this site also debunks some of the more common lies and propaganda peddled by creationism.
If theists could offer a tiny fraction of the objective evidence we have for evolution, they'd have my undivided attention. Creationism is a completely unevidenced myth, and a political movement in the US that has tried to rebrand creationism as intelligent design in an attempt to lend it some air of credibility, as opposed to naked superstitions.
No, your claim of "irrelevance" is just an excuse to avoid having to deal with the questions.
But that's your decision to make, and you've made it and clung to it.
So it only remains for me to wish you ─ again ─ happy trailsl.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Still irrelevant.
