Life From Dirt?

[Subduction Zone]

You loose all credibility about what the Bible supports or not with your reading of the Tyre prophecy.

LMAO! No, that was you. You lost that in an epic fashion. One of the reasons was that you never read the whole thing. You keep forgetting that even the man that made that prediction admitted that he failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only because of your debunked definition of causality.

A denial is not debunking.

 

[Alien826]

A lot of this discussion about the "Big Bang" and so on is based on a simple misunderstanding. A scientist will come up with a hypothesis that is expressed in mathematical terms and only makes sense (if it does) in those terms. Then people come along and ask him to explain it to them. He then tries to say something that they will understand. So we have "big bang", "dark matter" and so on. People then try extract further meaning from those words, which the scientist would never do. And so we get the idea of the big bang as some kind of explosion into existing space, or something existing "outside time and space". The nearest thing to something accurate we have is the original mathematics, but few of us are equipped to understand it (including me!).

 

[Heyo]

The truth sets us free and Satan wants us free from the truth. Jesus said he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

... and slavery is freedom.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The truth sets us free and Satan wants us free from the truth. Jesus said he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Out of interest...

Is there actually a lie by satan recorded in any of the bible myths?
How about murders that weren't sanctioned by god himself?

 

[Brian2]

The concept of spirit is not needed at this time to account for biology, psychology, or anything else.

I doubt it will ever be needed. It seems you first need to show that spirit exists before proposing it in science as an answer to anything.

That doesn't rebut the claim that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Nor dies it address their contradictions.

It addresses their supposed contradictions, but if people want to claim things about Gen 2 I don't know how I can rebut them.

There are hundreds or thousands of researchers in abiogenesis who disagree, as do the those allocating the millions of dollars to underwrite their research.

Yes I guess they say that a natural explanation will one day be found.

Not in my epistemology. I don't call anything knowledge that isn't justified empirically, which is the addition of reasoning to evidence.

I was referring to God in timelessness. God's knowing probably replaced a need to think and work things out over time.

I can't imagine them existing outside of space.

No but they are abstract things that do not take up space.

You made the claim already and it was rebutted. Unless you want to try to falsify the rebuttal, which unless it contains an error you can demonstrate is an error has falsified that claim already, the debate is over. Debate is the method critical thinkers use to resolve differences of opinion, and ends amicably when one makes an argument that the other cannot rebut, the other thanking him for the demonstration and the new learning. But when one of them ignores a rebuttal and repeats himself, only the other understands that the issue is resolved, the one just repeating himself with no evidence that he has seen or understood the rebuttal.

You said:
The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover."
It became science when observation was added centuries later. Aristotle famously and erroneously proclaimed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones without testing the claim.
And it's unsurprising that most scientists were Christian, since it was the work of these scientists that made first deism and then atheism tenable. But their science didn't come from their Bibles, which were already centuries old by then. It came from free speculation - the same thing Thales did - but now with experimentation (rationalism became empiricism).

It was Christianity that promoted learning over the centuries and which started the first universities. It was Christianity from which the more profound implication came (and to which you refer) and possible without which, the study of and testing of nature might not have begun nearly as early.
Observation was added by Christians, notably I hear of Francis Bacon who is seen to be the father of empiricism.
Are you saying that deism and atheism were not tenable before science? I suppose that is pointing to the God of the gaps. But a naturalistic mechanism for things that were previously seen as things that God did, does not push God aside or the need for God.

The rules of reason are applicable to all claims of fact. And religious theology (as opposed to the Bible as literature or a cultural factor, or comparative religions, all of which are academic studies grounded in evidence), being faith-based and not grounded in evidence, is just unfalsifiable claims about things indistinguishable from the nonexistent. My rules of reason tell me to disregard such claims (Popper's Unfalsifiablity Razor)

Popper's falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.
So religious theology is not scientific. I know that. I don't live my life according to principles of science.

No, empiricists look at the available evidence and generate the simplest narrative that accounts for it. They'll invoke gods if that becomes necessary to account for some new finding. You've seen the cosmologists introducing new ideas like dark matter and dark energy to account for recent discoveries not explicable by the narrative of 20th century cosmology, but not a minute before that, and no more was added that needed. Dark matter was not called anything but an unseen source of gravity, not a god, for example. Maybe it is a god and we will discover that someday, but that day hasn't come, and therefore that hypothesis is unneeded.

You talk science as if belief in God is and should be a matter of science.

Apparently not if there are atheists.

He was saying that if you aren't going to believe in God because of nature, then God will not do a miracle especially to convince you.

Not with me. It's the one using motivated reason to justify his position that loses credibility: "Motivated reasoning is a form of reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion."

So I am automatically wrong even if I am right?

You're missing the implication: "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The fetus doesn't have the same value or worth as the mother. It's a commodity, like cattle, the loss of which is remediable with a cash payment.

The point being that it was an accident. But no doubt there is something in what you say also, but I think you show a case of "motivated reasoning".
Not me, I'm not biased.

 

[Brian2]

Fetus or perhaps embryo. Not a baby. Yes, and it showed that when she did that it was just a monetary fine in the time of an eye for an eye. If it was a person why wasn't the man put to death?

It was an accident, not murder.

 

[Brian2]

LMAO! No, that was you. You lost that in an epic fashion. One of the reasons was that you never read the whole thing. You keep forgetting that even the man that made that prediction admitted that he failed.

I see no admission of failure. You only say that because you refuse to see the "they" as the many nations and want it to be Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was an accident, not murder.

You are ignoring context again. What would have happened if the pregnant woman had died too?

 

[Brian2]

A denial is not debunking.

Yes that sounds familiar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no admission of failure. You only say that because you refuse to see the "they" as the many nations and want it to be Nebuchadnezzar.

You really have a problem with context. You have to read the whole thing. Nebby was a "king of kings". That means that when he attacked that was many nations. Or are you going to claim that God is immoral and contradicts himself again? You can't have it both ways. Please make up your mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that sounds familiar.

Yes, it is what you do too often.

 

[Brian2]

A lot of this discussion about the "Big Bang" and so on is based on a simple misunderstanding. A scientist will come up with a hypothesis that is expressed in mathematical terms and only makes sense (if it does) in those terms. Then people come along and ask him to explain it to them. He then tries to say something that they will understand. So we have "big bang", "dark matter" and so on. People then try extract further meaning from those words, which the scientist would never do. And so we get the idea of the big bang as some kind of explosion into existing space, or something existing "outside time and space". The nearest thing to something accurate we have is the original mathematics, but few of us are equipped to understand it (including me!).

The simple explanations are the best. The mathematicians should be able to explain the meaning of their work.

 

[Brian2]

Out of interest...

Is there actually a lie by satan recorded in any of the bible myths?
How about murders that weren't sanctioned by god himself?

It was a lie by Satan when he said to Eve, "You will not surely die, you will become like God and know good from evil".
From that lie, the deception in the garden, comes all the human deaths on earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a lie by Satan when he said to Eve, "You will not surely die, you will become like God and know good from evil".
From that lie, the deception in the garden, comes all the human deaths on earth.

Context matters. When God said that they would die he said that it would be on that day.

 

[Brian2]

You are ignoring context again. What would have happened if the pregnant woman had died too?

That would have been an accident also. Those involved in an accidental killing were to flee to a city of refuge so that the relatives of the woman would not avenge the death unjustly.
In the case of the fetus, miscarriages happened. I suppose an unborn was seen as less valuable as a person and also probably seen as the property of the parents, and justice I suppose was served better if there was a payment instead of fleeing to a city of refuge and the avenger of blood having the right to kill those people if they left there before the death of the High Priest.

 

[Brian2]

You really have a problem with context. You have to read the whole thing. Nebby was a "king of kings". That means that when he attacked that was many nations. Or are you going to claim that God is immoral and contradicts himself again? You can't have it both ways. Please make up your mind.

No, Nebby was King of Babylon, one nation, one empire, not many nations.

 

[Brian2]

Context matters. When God said that they would die he said that it would be on that day.

That is an expression that meant that from that day they would know that they would surely die.
You must think all Jews and Christians are stupid, and the writers were stupid, when God says something that is shown to be a lie on the next page, and they still believe God did not lie and nobody redacted it out over the years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would have been an accident also. Those involved in an accidental killing were to flee to a city of refuge so that the relatives of the woman would not avenge the death unjustly.
In the case of the fetus, miscarriages happened. I suppose an unborn was seen as less valuable as a person and also probably seen as the property of the parents, and justice I suppose was served better if there was a payment instead of fleeing to a city of refuge and the avenger of blood having the right to kill those people if they left there before the death of the High Priest.

Except the passage is very clear. That would result in the death penalty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Nebby was King of Babylon, one nation, one empire, not many nations.

Nope, king of kings, he ruled many nations. The idea of a nation then was not the same as now.