Noahs Ark

[rusra02]

To sum up this issue in my own words:

1. The Bible, Jesus, and the apostles clearly believed in and taught that the global flood of Noah's days really happened. If we claim to be Christians (followers of Christ and his teachings) and believe the Bible is God's Word, we accept the Flood as true history.

2. There is no human alive today who can say with certainty what the preflood world was like, how high the mountains were, or what the climate was like, what animals were then existing, etc.

3. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Flood did not occur. Rather, the posters to this thread put their spin on what the evidence available shows.

4. People who choose not to believe will not likely change their views, and neither will people who choose to believe.

 

[fantome profane]

People who choose not to believe will not likely change their views, and neither will people who choose to believe.

Fine, if you choose to believe this Biblical story in a literal way that is your choice. But do not try to claim that it is scientifically valid. Do not lie, twist, or misrepresent scientific evidence to make it seem like such a ridiculous story is physically possible. All we can say is that it contradicts the laws of physics. If you want to believe a story that contradicts the laws of physics that is your decision.

(p.s. ignoring evidence is not the same as refuting it)

 

[skydivephil]

To sum up this issue in my own words:

1. The Bible, Jesus, and the apostles clearly believed in and taught that the global flood of Noah's days really happened. If we claim to be Christians (followers of Christ and his teachings) and believe the Bible is God's Word, we accept the Flood as true history.

2. There is no human alive today who can say with certainty what the preflood world was like, how high the mountains were, or what the climate was like, what animals were then existing, etc.

3. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Flood did not occur. Rather, the posters to this thread put their spin on what the evidence available shows.


4. People who choose not to believe will not likely change their views, and neither will people who choose to believe.

Why do we need to say it with certianity? Science doesnt deal with certainity, it deals with the best available evidence. The bets avilable evidence is clear, the flood didnt happen. Are you suggesting we cant be confident about what happened in the past from the physical evidence that remains?

 

[Autodidact]

To sum up this issue in my own words:

1. The Bible, Jesus, and the apostles clearly believed in and taught that the global flood of Noah's days really happened. If we claim to be Christians (followers of Christ and his teachings) and believe the Bible is God's Word, we accept the Flood as true history.

And this is the sole basis for you belief.

2. There is no human alive today who can say with certainty what the preflood world was like, how high the mountains were, or what the climate was like, what animals were then existing, etc.

There is no human alive today who can say with that degree of certainty that they exist. However, we know with as much certainty as we are capable of that there was no preflood world, because there was no flood. If we can't be certain of this, then the scientific method, as well as all scientific discoveries and knowledge, are worthless.

3. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Flood did not occur. Rather, the posters to this thread put their spin on what the evidence available shows.

There is evidence as irrefutable as any scientific evidence of anything that we know. The only way to reject it is to reject the possibility of science itself.

4. People who choose not to believe will not likely change their views, and neither will people who choose to believe.

People who accept science know there has never been a flood. People who reject science in favor of magic will persist in this belief.

 

[MSizer]

...There is no irrefutable evidence that the Flood did not occur...

Lloyd: "whats are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me, you know, getting together?"

Mary: "Uh, well Lloyd, uh, pretty small actually."

Lloyd: "you mean like, 1 in a hundred small?"

Mary: "more like, one in a million"

Lloyd: "so what you're saying is that there's a chance! Yes!"

 

[Arlanbb]

To sum up this issue in my own words:

1. The Bible, Jesus, and the apostles clearly believed in and taught that the global flood of Noah's days really happened. If we claim to be Christians (followers of Christ and his teachings) and believe the Bible is God's Word, we accept the Flood as true history. Yes, Jesus and the Apostles thought there was a Genesis deluge but only because they were reading the Hebrew bible and it said so to them.

3. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Flood did not occur. Rather, the posters to this thread put their spin on what the evidence available shows.
Yes, there is "irrefutable" evidence the Genesis flood never happened, it is called archaological evidence. The date that is given for the Genesis flood is about 2400 BC and we have showen you that that date is right in he middle of four cultures with millions of people, Egyptian, Ur, Indus and Sumer living in theses cultures. If the flood had really happened in 2400 BC those cultures would not have survived the flood but they did. You have not explained how all those millions of people lived before and after and until you do explain how they could be alive before and after your flood these living people after 2400 BC is "IRREFUTABLE" evidence the Genesis flood never happened, the Egyptian and UR cultures lived on for over 2000 years after the 2400 BC so called flood. date.

Please explain to us how this happened millions of same people living before and after 2400BC date?????:yes:

 

[rusra02]

To sum up this issue in my own words:

1. The Bible, Jesus, and the apostles clearly believed in and taught that the global flood of Noah's days really happened. If we claim to be Christians (followers of Christ and his teachings) and believe the Bible is God's Word, we accept the Flood as true history. Yes, Jesus and the Apostles thought there was a Genesis deluge but only because they were reading the Hebrew bible and it said so to them.

3. There is no irrefutable evidence that the Flood did not occur. Rather, the posters to this thread put their spin on what the evidence available shows.
Yes, there is "irrefutable" evidence the Genesis flood never happened, it is called archaological evidence. The date that is given for the Genesis flood is about 2400 BC and we have showen you that that date is right in he middle of four cultures with millions of people, Egyptian, Ur, Indus and Sumer living in theses cultures. If the flood had really happened in 2400 BC those cultures would not have survived the flood but they did. You have not explained how all those millions of people lived before and after and until you do explain how they could be alive before and after your flood these living people after 2400 BC is "IRREFUTABLE" evidence the Genesis flood never happened, the Egyptian and UR cultures lived on for over 2000 years after the 2400 BC so called flood. date.

Please explain to us how this happened millions of same people living before and after 2400BC date?????:yes:

This is discussed elsewhere in this post. The suppositions you make are based on dating methods that have been shown to be unreliable past a certain age.

 

[rusra02]

And this is the sole basis for you belief.
There is no human alive today who can say with that degree of certainty that they exist. However, we know with as much certainty as we are capable of that there was no preflood world, because there was no flood. If we can't be certain of this, then the scientific method, as well as all scientific discoveries and knowledge, are worthless.

There is evidence as irrefutable as any scientific evidence of anything that we know. The only way to reject it is to reject the possibility of science itself.

People who accept science know there has never been a flood. People who reject science in favor of magic will persist in this belief.

Science is a god to many people, and a false god at that. Much of what passes as 'science' are unsubstantiated theories, such as comets hitting the earth, and evolution being responsible for all life. A relatively short while ago, it was scientific to bleed sick people... (false) Science is left speechless to explain the miraculous processes of life, processes the best minds cannot hope to emulate in well equipped labs. True science and true knowledge, including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate. Where falsely called knowledge is revised frequently, the Bible has stood the test of time for thousands of years. Jesus acknowledged in prayer to his Father, "Your word is truth". (John 17:17)
Having said this, I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices. So be it. The truth will out in due time.

 

[skydivephil]

Science is a god to many people, and a false god at that. Much of what passes as 'science' are unsubstantiated theories, such as comets hitting the earth, and evolution being responsible for all life. A relatively short while ago, it was scientific to bleed sick people... (false) Science is left speechless to explain the miraculous processes of life, processes the best minds cannot hope to emulate in well equipped labs. True science and true knowledge, including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate. Where falsely called knowledge is revised frequently, the Bible has stood the test of time for thousands of years. Jesus acknowledged in prayer to his Father, "Your word is truth". (John 17:17)
Having said this, I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices. So be it. The truth will out in due time.

Comest hitting the Earth are very well verified. Firstly we observe comets with our own eyes and telescopes, we have impact crates. For the death of the dinosaurs the comet impact theory predicted a layer of iridium between Crataceous and tertiary strata, thats is exactly was was found. So how on Earth can you claim that is unsubtsantiated? Evolution has enormous amounts of evidence, it makes incredibly exact predictions, for example the distribution of pseudo genes and amino acid functional redudancy.
As for blood letting, this really is a joke. Blood letting was used before scientific methodology was widely accpeted by medical pracittioners. After the acceptance of the double blind randomised trial blood letting was shown to bbe false. Its science that changed that practice, you need to study your medical history a bit mroe I think . Try this book for an excellent account:
Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial: Amazon.co.uk: Simon Singh, Edzard Ernst: Books

 

[MountainHumanist]

Science is a god to many people, and a false god at that. Much of what passes as 'science' are unsubstantiated theories, such as comets hitting the earth, and evolution being responsible for all life. A relatively short while ago, it was scientific to bleed sick people... (false) Science is left speechless to explain the miraculous processes of life, processes the best minds cannot hope to emulate in well equipped labs. True science and true knowledge, including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate. Where falsely called knowledge is revised frequently, the Bible has stood the test of time for thousands of years. Jesus acknowledged in prayer to his Father, "Your word is truth". (John 17:17)
Having said this, I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices. So be it. The truth will out in due time.

Science is no more a god to me than my car is. My car is a vehicle I use to arrive at a destination. As long as it is reliable, I use it. If it becomes an unreliable method, I reject it and look at train schedules. The same with science. As long as it continues to provide us with reliable information from which we can obtain beneficial results (like this computer I am using), I will place confidence (not faith) in science — it has stood the test for thousands of years.

As a side note, I believe you are misusing the word "theory." When you say that word, I think you mean a hypothesis (an educated guess which requires validation). To those educated in science a theory is: "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or
phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation and experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general
laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

So the theories under which we operate HAVE been substantiated or they have been disproved and replaced with theories that better conform to reality. Your example of bleeding sick people is an excellent instance of how science works. As we gain more information, bad hypotheses ("bleeding people will cure them") is replaced by better verifiable theories. I know of no scientist who is "speechless" concerning any aspect of the processes of life. They have been studied, tested and documented. Amino acids similar to those believed to present when life first form have been made in laboratories. The problem is we don't have a million years to run these experiments nor does the earth have the same atmosphere. Do we know how life first began? No. Does that mean we can lazily insert a magic word like Creator God in the blanks? No. For all we know our planet could have been seeded by extraterrestrials. Do I believe this happened? No..there exists no evidence in any sense as to how exactly self-replicating organic cells got their start. Until there is more information, it is foolhardy for any of us to say "I know."

When you say "the Bible has stood the test of time," the question arises which Bible? The canon we now use in most churches did not even exist until more than 400 years after Jesus was believed to have lived. Some churches include books which other churches reject. Has the Apocrypha stood this test? In some churches, yes — in others, no. The more scholars study the copies of the copies of the original manuscript (we have never found an original NT manuscript), the more they find editorial insertions, redaction, scribal errors and outright fiction added to older texts.

Plus, if you believe the statement, "the Bible has stood the test of time," you have to also admit that, given that statement as a standard, you must admit that several other world religions (religions which are clearly in contradiction to Christianity) must be just as true and valid since their ancient texts — the Hindu Bagahvad Gita and the many Buddhist texts which pre-date Christianity — are also still around and being used in their respective religions (not to mention my favorite religio-philosophical work the Tao Te Ching).

Finally, I want to agree wholeheartedly with your statement, "many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices." I think this is exactly why most people end up practicing the predominate religion of their culture. I know for me, it was traumatic to leave the comfort zone of my culture's religion (fundamentalist Christianity) and discover and adopt a philosophy that conformed best with my perception of reality. I encourage everyone to avoid simply accepting the religion you are given and question EVERYTHING. For some, that will mean a return to the religion of their culture (but hopefully in a more meaningful way) and for others it will mean an exciting journey down a new path.

Thank you, Rusra, for providing such an interesting post for discussion. Please do not take my reply as an attack but simply as an honest analysis of the content. I wish the best for you and peace in your life.

 

[Arlanbb]

This is discussed elsewhere in this post. The suppositions you make are based on dating methods that have been shown to be unreliable past a certain age.

Sorry about that rusra02 ~ I must have missed that Post ~ please refresh my mind by telling me which post I missed> thanks :sleep:

 

[Amill]

Science is a god to many people, and a false god at that. Much of what passes as 'science' are unsubstantiated theories, such as comets hitting the earth, and evolution being responsible for all life. A relatively short while ago, it was scientific to bleed sick people... (false) Science is left speechless to explain the miraculous processes of life, processes the best minds cannot hope to emulate in well equipped labs. True science and true knowledge, including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate. Where falsely called knowledge is revised frequently, the Bible has stood the test of time for thousands of years. Jesus acknowledged in prayer to his Father, "Your word is truth". (John 17:17)
Having said this, I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices. So be it. The truth will out in due time.

What a bunch of bullcrap. What about all of the intelligent scientists who are Christians? What about the MILLIONS of Christians who accept Evolution to be true? Obviously science isn't a god to those people, they just looked at the world and the evidence and found that it suggests that we live an old planet that has been hit by large asteroids and comets, and that it sustains life that has all originated from a single common ancestor. The science that these people accept is no different than people accepting the fact that the moon isn't a source of light, only a reflector of the sun's light.

If you want to reject all the scientific knowledge we have and go back to bible basics, you'd believe that the world is a flat circle with edges. Scientific explanations are honest attempts to explain evidence that we find, whether it's evidence that our planet travels around the sun or evidence that all life shares an ancestor.

Do you not accept any scientific explanations over biblical sources? Or do you just choose to alienate Evolution and anything that suggests the earth and Universe are billions of years old?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's no such thing as irrefutable evidence to those who do not respect truth or facts. Anything can be refuted if you ignore reality.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Science is a god to many people

No it's not. You are clearly delusional. You generalize "science" but your real gripe is with the ToE....which you clearly don't agree with nor understand.

Much of what passes as 'science' are unsubstantiated theories, such as comets hitting the earth,

Well we have evidence that asteroids have hit the earth so it's not out of the realm of possibility that a comet could. Most debris burn up in our atmosphere but if you want to know it could be possible just look at the surface of the moon. In fact the earth is no stranger to meteor showers. Heck..even our own man made debris makes its way back into out atmosphere.

and evolution being responsible for all life.

Where has it been said that evolution is "responsible for all life"? That in itself is an ignorant statement. Evolution is the process in which existing life changes over a long period of time.

A relatively short while ago, it was scientific to bleed sick people... (false) Science is left speechless to explain the miraculous processes of life, processes the best minds cannot hope to emulate in well equipped labs.

Where does science ever say it has all the answers? Your argument here is poor. In fact it was science that corrected this and now this process is no longer used. Shucks, how many times have you heard of some devoutly religious family who don't believe in modern medicine refuse to take a sick loved one to the hospital....hoping and praying "the lord" will hear their prayers and free that loved one from their affliction.....only to be constantly told that if they had brought that loved one into the hospital when the person became ill...he or she could have been saved? You talk about science not working....?????? No...religious dogma is dangerous to ones health and well being...especially in the case of illness.

True science

What is true science?

including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate.

No it hasn't. It shows the bible to be inaccurate in various areas. Case in point...The Flood. Find me a credited scientist that agrees with the flood narrative..that there was a WWF, who has shared his finding with his or her colleagues and they agreed with said findings.

Where falsely called knowledge is revised frequently, the Bible has stood the test of time for thousands of years.

No it hasn't. You're delusional and dishonest.

I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices.

And you are a shinning example of that.....

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well we have evidence that asteroids have hit the earth so it's not out of the realm of possibility that a comet could. Most debris burn up in our atmosphere but if you want to know it could be possible just look at the surface of the moon. In fact the earth is no stranger to meteor showers. Heck..even our own man made debris makes its way back into out atmosphere.
.

But at what point in earth's history would have asteroids hit the earth?
We know during the lengthy creative days that the earth underwent many changes. Once the earth was established there is no reason for that to happen again. Its foundation according to Scripture will not be made to totter or be moved.

The moon does not have the atmospheric protection the earth has, and the gravitational pull of Jupiter draws harmful things away from earth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But at what point in earth's history would have asteroids hit the earth?

Are you serious....?

Are you serious....?

Yes. That's right. I asked the question TWICE. It's like creationist and IDers have simply turned their minds off and are completely ignoring all that we KNOW of the natural world. It is FACT that this planet has been bombarded by various asteroids/meteorites.

One such impact crater is this one;
File:Meteor.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's the information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event).

At this point I could simply stop right here and say I have proved my case but I feel the need to give you more information in a hope that you'll realize your scriptures, when understanding the natural world, is wrong and should not be used as a source of inquiry.

Here are some others;

Henbury Meteorite Crater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henbury_crater

Kaali Crater
Kaali crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here is a good site to see at least 50 of the worlds evidence of impact. The site is interactive giving you the location of each using satellite technology rendered via the web using Google.

Meteor Craters - Explore 50 Asteroid Impact Sites! - GEOLOGY.COM

We know during the lengthy creative days that the earth underwent many changes. Once the earth was established there is no reason for that to happen again. Its foundation according to Scripture will not be made to totter or be moved.

What do "you mean" by ("lengthy creative days")? Actually I think it is quite possible for a large enough object to strike our planet and cause it to be knocked off its current axis. This has been hypothesized with Mars and Uranus.

Mars Once Knocked Off Its Axis - Space News - redOrbit

BrainPOP Jr. | Solar System | Lesson Ideas

The moon does not have the atmospheric protection the earth has, and the gravitational pull of Jupiter draws harmful things away from earth.

My point was that objects such as meteorites, asteroids etc "have" hit our planet before. Considering our solar system is very vast it is amazing to see the moon and how over billions of years shows us the impact craters it has. The other poster was making it seem like such events could not happen here. I agree with you that our protective layer around our planet does offer some protection. We know this because we have the evidence that some objects simply burn up in the atmosphere before reaching earth. Although Jupitur may pull objects away from us it does not pull 100% of these kinds of objects away. Smaller (relatively) objects may not get pulled away by Jupiter. Again, see the links above. When I say "relativity" small. I mean small enough to escape Jupiter's gravitational pull but large enough to strike us and do some serious damage (see links above).......

 

[rusra02]

What a bunch of bullcrap. What about all of the intelligent scientists who are Christians? What about the MILLIONS of Christians who accept Evolution to be true? Obviously science isn't a god to those people, they just looked at the world and the evidence and found that it suggests that we live an old planet that has been hit by large asteroids and comets, and that it sustains life that has all originated from a single common ancestor. The science that these people accept is no different than people accepting the fact that the moon isn't a source of light, only a refector of the sun's light.

If you want to reject all the scientific knowledge we have and go back to bible basics, you'd believe that the world is a flat circle with edges. Scientific explanations are honest attempts to explain evidence that we find, whether it's evidence that our planet travels around the sun or evidence that all life shares an ancestor.

Do you not accept any scientific explanations over biblical sources? Or do you just choose to alienate Evolution and anything that suggests the earth and Universe are billions of years old?

Many use the bullying tactics commonly used by many scientists and academics who seek to quell dissent from the 'scientific orthodoxy' and ban heretics to the realm of the ignorant and foolish. There are many scientists who reject evolution as a theory because they believe the evidence doesn't support this theory. Often those scientists who have these honest beliefs are afraid to state them, fearing professional ostracism from their peers. This may be denied by the scientific establishment, but is the truth nevertheless. People don't look at the evidence in most cases. They just blindly follow the propaganda drummed into them from an early age by teachers and the media whose constant refrain when discussing the natural world is 'evolved, evolution, evolved'. If you doubt this, just listen carefully to the next nature program you come across on TV.

Evolution cannot be reconciled to the Bible's account of creation. Those who believe in the theory often have already rejected the Bible as accurate history, and consider the creation account a myth. For example:
A 1938 New York Times headline announced: “Church of England Report Upholds Evolutionary Idea of the Creation.” The report, by a commission under the Archbishop of York, stated: “No objection to a theory of evolution can be drawn from the two creation narratives in Genesis I and II, since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin and that their value for us is symbolic rather than historical.” The archbishop’s commission concluded: “You can think what you like and still be Christian.”
The Bible does not say you can think what you like and still be Christian. Millions of people are Christian in name only. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus taught the creation account as being historical fact, referring to Adam and Eve as real people.
Neither does the Bible say the Earth is any particular age. So the Bible is misquoted by those who claim God created the earth in 6 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible say the Earth is a flat circle with edges. So much nonsense is taught and claimed it is in the Bible. It is not. Many find it convenient to believe in something that allows them to make decisions about conduct that reflects selfish interests and lack of concern for others.
It takes courage to take the blinders off our eyes and see the truth and implications of what the Bible at Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[Autodidact]

This is discussed elsewhere in this post. The suppositions you make are based on dating methods that have been shown to be unreliable past a certain age.

No, you're mistaken. They haven't at all. They're not suppositions; they're scientific conclusions. They're based on sound theory, and have been corroborated by calibrating them against tree rings, ice cores, varves, and other annual events. They're actually quite accurate.

Furthermore, the Egyptians kept records and calendars. They were writing these records while under water, according to you. How did they do that?

Furthermore, their records agree with radio-carbon dating of their artifacts, further corroborating carbon-dating. How do you account for that?

 

[Amill]

Neither does the Bible say the Earth is any particular age. So the Bible is misquoted by those who claim God created the earth in 6 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible say the Earth is a flat circle with edges. So much nonsense is taught and claimed it is in the Bible. It is not. Many find it convenient to believe in something that allows them to make decisions about conduct that reflects selfish interests and lack of concern for others.

So you're allowed to interpret the word "day" to be any length of time and still be a Christian? And what about the passages that discuss the edge of the earth, the four corners of the earth, and moon as a light? So you can interpret those passages differently and propose different meanings for them, but you can't be a Christian if you ever interpret anything that proposes life may have evolved? Sorry bud but it appears you are purposely alienating certain sciences that you just don't like...unless you don't accept any scientific explanations that aren't the same as biblical sources?

Why is it ok to be a Christian and acknowledge the earth as a sphere instead of a circle, but not ok to acknowledge that all life has a single common ancestor?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Many use the bullying tactics commonly used by many scientists and academics who seek to quell dissent from the 'scientific orthodoxy' and ban heretics to the realm of the ignorant and foolish.

Because what creationist propose can not be tested or verified. This is what makes their assumptions foolish.

There are many scientists who reject evolution as a theory because they believe the evidence doesn't support this theory.

When you say "many" you really mean to say FEW. And the few that do disagree seem to be evangelical christians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

Often those scientists who have these honest beliefs are afraid to state them, fearing professional ostracism from their peers.

No they haven't. See the article provided. The ones that have come forward went as far as signing their names to a petition so your argument fails.

This may be denied by the scientific establishment, but is the truth nevertheless. People don't look at the evidence in most cases.

Do you have a source because you appear to be guessing here?

They just blindly follow the propaganda drummed into them from an early age by teachers and the media whose constant refrain when discussing the natural world is 'evolved, evolution, evolved'. If you doubt this, just listen carefully to the next nature program you come across on TV.

Ok, so because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the ToE, it can be analysed and tested...It's now some one else's fault or some sort of a conspiracy...?

Evolution cannot be reconciled to the Bible's account of creation.
Those who believe in the theory often have already rejected the Bible as accurate history, and consider the creation account a myth.

This is true and they are correct.

The Bible does not say you can think what you like and still be Christian. Millions of people are Christian in name only. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus taught the creation account as being historical fact, referring to Adam and Eve as real people.

Assuming that Yeshua was a real person....he was completely wrong as far as creation.

Neither does the Bible say the Earth is a flat circle with edges.

It sure does.....:sarcastic

So much nonsense is taught and claimed it is in the Bible. It is not. Many find it convenient to believe in something that allows them to make decisions about conduct that reflects selfish interests and lack of concern for others.

No. We are familiar with your scriptures and we disagree with most, not all, of the claims those scriptures make. There is no motives here. If it disagrees with what we know of the natural world then there is a chance that one of them (bible creation narrative) or (biology, geology, archaeology, anthropology, cosmology) are wrong. So my money is on the bible being wrong because it has been shown to be incorrect.

It takes courage to take the blinders off our eyes and see the truth and implications of what the Bible at Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

No..It takes a gullible, brainwashed person to consistently ignore the actual facts.