Science Babble vs Truth

[YoursTrue]

Why is it that people think they can find evidence for God in the bible? Its the very book that makes the claim, obviously it is going to support it.

You will find more information at jw.org. But -- I will be very brief. No matter what contentions some may bring against the Bible, a fact is that the first portion (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) was written before the unfolding of the nation of Israel with the prophets and kings. I won't get too deep into it here, but you can find more information about that at www.jw.org.

 

[Nimos]

You will find more information at jw.org. But -- I will be very brief. No matter what contentions some may bring against the Bible, a fact is that the first portion (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) was written before the unfolding of the nation of Israel with the prophets and kings. I won't get too deep into it here, but you can find more information about that at www.jw.org.

I know JW.org well, debated a JW for almost 2.5 years

 

[gnostic]

You will find more information at jw.org. But -- I will be very brief. No matter what contentions some may bring against the Bible, a fact is that the first portion (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) was written before the unfolding of the nation of Israel with the prophets and kings. I won't get too deep into it here, but you can find more information about that at www.jw.org.

Except there are no evidence exist that show the Genesis and Exodus or anything “biblical” were written in the late Bronze Age, no mentions anywhere that of biblical figures, like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc.

There are no inscriptions on doors or walls of Bronze Age palaces, places of worship, homes, tombs, etc.

No inscriptions on artefacts like figurines, pottery ware, jewels, seals, etc.

No writings on stone tablets, clay tablets, metal tablets, parchment, papyri, etc.

There are nothing in cuneiform - the most popular writing in Middle East (eg Canaan and Ugarit, Hittite empire in the north, and Assyria, Babylonia and Elam in the east) - or in hieroglyphs and hieratic in Egypt. The alphabet was only invented around 11th century BCE, so not much writings exist alphabet until the 7th century BCE and later.

If these books that you claimed that are central to the Abrahamic religions, then there would be something in Bronze Age Canaan itself (for example, there is Bronze Age palatial archive in Megiddo, filled with cuneiform written on clay tablets, or its neighbors, like in Egypt, Ugarit, Babylonia, Assyria, where literacy existed. And yet, there are absolute nothing, no biblical writings or the supposed prominent biblical figures, like Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Joshua.

You don’t find evidence of Genesis and Exodus until the 6th century BCE and later.

So what you are saying about Genesis and Exodus being written “before the unfolding of nation of Israel” - is nothing more than false and unsubstantiated opinions.

No, YoursTrue, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah predated all biblical writings. Your claims are just babble.

Even the claims of kings Saul, David and Solomon, there are no evidence that they existed prior to kingdoms of Israel and Judah, hence more invented myths; there are no evidence of Saul, David and Solomon, and there are certainly no evidence of Solomon empire and fable wealth.

The books of Samuel didn’t exist in the early Iron Age, and Samuel certainly didn’t write any of the books that were named after him. Samuel, like Kings, were written after Jerusalem had fallen in 587 BCE.

There are evidence in the Old Testament, but they only verified some reigns of rulers from Judah and Israel, as being contemporaries to the Assyrian kings, all stories of miracles were invented, and certainly cannot be verified in any ways.

 

[gnostic]

Going back to the OP.

I think most of the babbles come from religions, especially those claiming “biblical truth” (hence the Bible) as being the only truth.

Of course, Muslims would argue against Christian biblical truth, for the “Islamic truth”, hence they will only accept the Quran as their own truth.

But regardless of which religions, and which scriptures, the truth is lost in the babbles of the believers.

 

[nPeace]

To these people this were the truth, its no different from when I asked you earlier who decides whether YEC are right or not, you clearly think they are wrong yet they would disagree with you and say that your interpretation of the bible is wrong.

I fail to see a point to this argument. Do the fact that scientist disagree on their interpretations mean that none are right? What's your point?

That is a huge issue with religions in general that it depends on how you interpret the scriptures. You simply claiming that their views are wrong doesn't make it so, since you haven't been able to demonstrate your own views as being the correct interpretation.

This is obviously not a well thought out argument, imo. Science depends on how scientists interpret the data, or evidence. is that a huge issue to you?

Yes have always been an atheist.

So all your parents, guardians, and relatives were Atheists as well?

My point being that the bible is not unique in its views, lots of other cultures at the time followed similar rules, that you should not murder etc. So following common sense or any of the other cultures is equally as useful as following the bible in regards to this.

Evidently, you did not get the point.

There is a huge difference between saying something appears intelligently designed and it being so. It would be amazing if the polar bears lived where they do without any way to protect against the cold. Saying that they got fur due to something intelligent doesn't seem very likely, compared to them having gotten thick fur doing to evolution.

Is that not like saying, because we have a tailbone, it means we, or our ancestors had a tail?
There is a huge difference between speculating on that, and it actually being true.

Saying that it is intelligently designed, is to look at it from a top to bottom approach, but evolution is bottom to top. Meaning that those polar bears that didn't evolved or got thick enough fur would have died from the cold and the rest would have made it so they could pass on their genes. Think about the million of species that have gone extinct, what does that tell you about them being intelligently designed?

You have an opportunity to prove that what you say is actually an honest and truthful claim.
Romans 1:19-20; Hebrews 3:4 Please prove that this is a top down approach. Don't just say it is, demonstrate it for us please.

Of course they do, the natural explanation is that we humans designed them and that all these buttons and switches have been added because we wanted them there to make airplanes better. So there is a perfectly natural explanation for it.

No need to respond to an analogy. However, as you have done so, how do you know the cockpit of an airplane was designed by humans, say, if you never saw that it was done by them?

But we are not, and there are clear evidence for this not being the case. We know of 5 mass extinctions on the planet already and according to many scientists we might very well be heading for a 6 one at the moment.

Let's say there were a hundred mass extinctions, how does that prove that there is no intelligent creator?
Does the fact that something can happen, mean that no one can stop it? Does it mean that it was meant to be?
The ozone layer - a part of the many layers of our atmosphere, is depleted due to man's activity. So does that mean, it never was a protection tto the earth?
I'm not seeing the point to your objections.

A decent sized meteor from space could hit us and its lights out for humanity.

I won't ask how you know that. An nuclear disaster, of one sort or other could out our lights. What's your point?

Yes, but my point being that adding together some ages from a book which is unverified as being accurate or even true, is not evidence worth anything.

I don't understand what you mean by adding together some ages from a book. Could you elaborate on that some more?
What would verify the book to be accurate or true, in your view?

In that case you would have to read Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which I don't expect you will, haven't read it my self either.

The six primary Planets are revolv’d about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

But as mentioned earlier, we know that Einstein explained it.

Seems to me you are interpreting Newton's words to fit your argument. I do not see anything there saying that Newton invoked God, because he could not find an explaination.
What i see, is Newton making a statement based on the evidence, and saying, in other words, what Romans 1:20 says - that the evidence is so clears, as to be refuted.

 

[nPeace]

It's rather obvious that human beings have been placing gods in the gaps of our understanding for about as long as we've been on this planet.
What did human beings attribute lightning to, before they knew where lightning came from? Gods.
What did human beings attribute a bad harvest to, before they knew much about weather systems? Gods.
What did humans turn to before the understood the reproductive cycle? Gods.

We can see people doing this even today. I've seen several posters on this forum insert Gods into gaps when it comes to our understanding of evolution, or the origins or "fine tuning" of the universe or into miracle claims they can't explain, etc. Humans have created Gods to explain just about everything at some point in human history. Hence the reason there are so many Gods in the dustbin of our history.

Newton attempted to insert God into his (lack of) understanding of the workings of the solar system and planetary motion, suggesting that God had to periodically intervene to keep it all in working order.
No. 3012: Newton, God, and Gravity
What The 'God Of The Gaps' Teaches Us About Science

That's interesting.
Now I know that you are not more than a hundred years old. So there is no way you are able to demonstrate that there were any god-of-the-gaps, but I think history, as well as the evidence we keep discovering shows clearly, that those gaps do not exist.
Rather, it is the case that persons want to form gaps, and fill them with their philosophies... empty philosophies, to be more precise.
The links you provided, are an example of such philosophy.
"Let's just say whatever we want, because we are allowed to. Those in agreement will gravitate to it, because it fits their worldview."

 

[nPeace]

Why is it that people think they can find evidence for God in the bible? Its the very book that makes the claim, obviously it is going to support it.

The Bible itself gives evidence that there is a creator. Moreover, a creator of the human family, who wanted humans to inhabit an earth designed to fill all their physical, and emotional needs.

1. Why sex? The Bible answers.
2. No man can precisely predict in exact detail, what will happen far into the future, and in sequence... Unless fill the blank.
3. It is impossible for 20 men of different backgrounds, locations, and time periods, to write portions of a script, that when combined into one, harmonious to a T, relating to one single theme, and message, which follows a sequence, or series.... Unless fill the blank.
4. No living being could tell us accurately what was not known scientifically, in an era where legends and myths were rife.... Unless fill the blank.
5. No one can accurately relate events of the past... Unless fill the blank.
6. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Knowing the course of wisdom, before experience is not possible... Unless fill the blank.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible itself gives evidence that there is a creator. Moreover, a creator of the human family, who wanted humans to inhabit an earth designed to fill all their physical, and emotional needs.

1. Why sex? The Bible answers.
2. No man can precisely predict in exact detail, what will happen far into the future, and in sequence... Unless fill the blank.
3. It is impossible for 20 men of different backgrounds, locations, and time periods, to write portions of a script, that when combined into one, harmonious to a T, relating to one single theme, and message, which follows a sequence, or series.... Unless fill the blank.
4. No living being could tell us accurately what was not known scientifically, in an era where legends and myths were rife.... Unless fill the blank.
5. No one can accurately relate events of the past... Unless fill the blank.
6. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Knowing the course of wisdom, before experience is not possible... Unless fill the blank.

The Bible does not give evidence. It only makes claims.

1. Why sex? It allows quicker evolution and more efficient evolution. That is supported by evidence. The Bible has a claim. It does not have an explanation.
2. WTF? The Bible has a huge record of failed prophecies and no successes when it comes to a true prophecy:
Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
3. It is not harmonious. It has endless self contradictions, and that includes very important parts of the Jesus story.
4. The Bible fails there too. You are trying to reinterpret it after the fact. The Bible actually supports a Flat Earth that is fixed in space.
5. The Bible fails there too. A historian could give endless examples, I will start with Luke's obvious failed nativity myth. His is ten years after Matthews.
6. One totally ignores books of myth like the Bible?

When are you going to post the evidence dude?

 

[wellwisher]

The scientific method is extroverted and is based on external group verification of reality, using our five sensory systems and tools that extend the range of these five senses. Science needs all to be on the same sensory page.

Religion is more introverted in its approach to reality. It often makes use of an internal system of verification based on what is often called the sixth sense. The sixth sense makes use of neural feedback, from unconscious data processing, that can appear in the form of body feelings and sensation as well as other internal sensory analogies like visions and audio feedback. One may get a gut feeling or have an intuition. Jesus would call this data stream the inner man.

The science approach is based on direct input of reality into the fives senses which then enters the brain. The religion approach uses the second half of these same pathways. This type of data processing uses sensory analogies via the second half of the sensory stream. For example, a vision of an angel in your room would be a combination of direct sensory input; room, plus data input onto the visual cortex without the using the eyes; overlay. Our sense of touch will use the hands for a data collector. The internal data stream uses a feeling analogy that touches one from the inside; gut feeling.

When I was younger I was a development engineer. When developing new ideas there is often no initial external verification of the desired result, since the development work has only just begun. The goal may o may not be possible in reality. Lack of scientific verification using the 5 senses is not a deal killer in development work, since this is a work in progress. One will need to make use of the internal verification system, to fill in the sensory blind spots that can cause the extroverted approach of science to go into denial. One may have to fight doubting Thomas each step of the way, until they can finally see wha you saw months earlier from the inside. Extroverted science can be an impediment to innovation.

The bible is based on faith and internal verification, which leave science feeling left out. They need something tangible to convince themselves or they will go into denial. Development scientists know you will need more than the five external senses, and they are not afraid to use these other tools, with the hope of making it easier for the internal blind, to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific method is extroverted and is based on external group verification of reality, using our five sensory systems and tools that extend the range of these five senses. Science needs all to be on the same sensory page.

Religion is more introverted in its approach to reality. It often makes use of an internal system of verification based on what is often called the sixth sense. The sixth sense makes use of neural feedback, from unconscious data processing, that can appear in the form of body feelings and sensation as well as other internal sensory analogies like visions and audio feedback. One may get a gut feeling or have an intuition. Jesus would call this data stream the inner man.

The science approach is based on direct input of reality into the fives senses which then enters the brain. The religion approach uses the second half of these same pathways. This type of data processing uses sensory analogies via the second half of the sensory stream. For example, a vision of an angel in your room is a combination of direct sensory input; room, plus direct input onto the visual cortex without the using the eyes. The sense of touch used the hands to a data collector. The internal data stream touches one from the inside; gut feeling.

When I was younger I was a development engineer. When developing new ideas there is often no initial external verification of the desired result, since the development work has only just begun. Lack of scientific verification using the 5 senses is not important to development work, since this is a work in progress. It will need to make use of the internal verification system, to fill in the sensory blanks that can cause the extroverted approach of science to go into denial. One has to fight doubting Thomas each step of the way until they can finally see. Extroverted science can be an impediment to innovation.

In that respect, science and external verification is easier to do compare to creativity led by faith, intuitions and gut feeling. The bible is based on faith and internal verification, which leave science feeling left out. They need something tangible to convince themselves or they will go into denial. Development scientists know you will need more that the five external senses, and are not afraid to use these other tools with the hope of making it easier for the internal blind to see.

The scientific method appears to be far more efficient than any other problem solving method. How has science ever impeded discovery? That is a claim that needs to be substantiated. And your description of the scientific method is not all that accurate.

The scientific method involves studying a field learning background information. Finding a problem that one wants an answer to. After further study a hypothesis, and at this point it is an educated guess is formed, that hypothesis is then tested, and retested, and tested some more. It is tweaked and adjusted as necessary and if needed tossed out. And the tests of the hypothesis need to be able to show that the hypothesis is incorrect. Mere confirmation is not enough. Technically if a hypothesis can only be confirmed but not refuted it is not a scientific hypothesis and one cannot have scientific evidence for it.

It is by trying to refute one's ideas that one can learn the most quite often.

 

[Nimos]

I fail to see a point to this argument. Do the fact that scientist disagree on their interpretations mean that none are right? What's your point?

No, my point is that you claim an authority in regards to how one ought to understand scriptures, when no such thing is valid. For instance a YEC will claim that the Earth is 6000 years old using the scriptures and other means to back up their claim or that Adam and Eve was in fact the first people on Earth because that is what the bible say. They just as you did, could equally claim that your position is not valid and therefore not a true Christian.

Unless they or you can verify your claim, neither of you can say the other part is wrong, it is simply your or theirs opinion about what a true Christian is, equally those in earlier periods of history had a different view of what true Christianity were, that it was fine to burn witches etc. Because we know that the bible do not like these and that God think that they should be killed.

So my point is, that science at least gives us a method to test and validate claims, obviously a lot of people will disagree with the findings, such as a YEC will say that science do not support an old Earth, that some say that evolution is wrong etc. Yet these people selectively choose which part they like or don't like, disregarding the methods of how these things are figured out. So when you say that those earlier Christians got it wrong and supply no method or reason for why they are wrong, except that you think they are. Because clearly they and the YEC uses the bible as well to back up their claims.

This is obviously not a well thought out argument, imo. Science depends on how scientists interpret the data, or evidence. is that a huge issue to you?

That is not exactly correct. I could make an experiment and that demonstrate that you need fire in order to burn things. You read my paper and how I performed my experiment and do the same test and you get the same result. Several other people do the same and also reach the same conclusion. When enough data have been collected it is reasonable to conclude that fire does in fact causes things to burn. Some might come along and notice that, things can burn even without fire, simply if the temperature is high enough it can cause things to burn, so you don't actually need a flame from a fire. It doesn't disprove that fire causes things to burn, but simply add to our understanding of what can cause things to burn. Anyone at any point, can question how these experiments were performed or find errors in them, find flaws in how the data were used etc. Which is why science is a process and the main purpose of science is not to tell us what is true, even though that is also part of it, but more importantly it is to tell us what is definitely not true. For instance water will not cause something to burn, doesn't mean that nothing will ever burn, simply that water is definitely not going to do it.

So all your parents, guardians, and relatives were Atheists as well?

Honestly have no clue. I think they are a lot more agnostics than I am. I do know that my mom is atheist as well, that is the only one im certain of.

Is that not like saying, because we have a tailbone, it means we, or our ancestors had a tail?
There is a huge difference between speculating on that, and it actually being true.

Yes agree. I don't know what the deal is with the tailbone and whether studies show that our ancient ancestors did have tails or not, but you could examine that and see what evidence there is for or against that position, I simply don't know it so have no opinion about it, as I haven't looked into it. But I do agree with you, that I see no reason to speculate about it either way until I actually know what information there is about it.

You have an opportunity to prove that what you say is actually an honest and truthful claim.
Romans 1:19-20; Hebrews 3:4 Please prove that this is a top down approach. Don't just say it is, demonstrate it for us please.

I don't really see a need to prove that is is a top down approach in regards to the scriptures that you have linked to. Because the claim start with you having to accept the presumption that God exist and I don't accept that it has been demonstrated.

But should we pretend that I did accept it. Then it is top to bottom as everything comes from God, he created it which means that it is a guided process. Whereas evolution from what we see is a none guided process, things evolve based on changes in their environment etc. Meaning the polar bear didn't get thick fur, because it wanted to migrate to colder areas, but got it as a result of colder areas and it had to adapt or go extinct.

No need to respond to an analogy. However, as you have done so, how do you know the cockpit of an airplane was designed by humans, say, if you never saw that it was done by them?

Well in that case, I would consider them to look unearthly, meaning no buttons, strange language etc. But I doubt, I would be confused about whether something were intentionally designed or not. But you are correct that ultimately given that I haven't seen it, I would not know with absolute certainty. But to me, that is a silly way to reason as the evident for them being designed by humans are overwhelming.

I won't ask how you know that. An nuclear disaster, of one sort or other could out our lights. What's your point?

If, I recall correctly this was about you saying that God is securing or protecting us? (Its been a while so might remember wrong) But simply that we do not seem to be very well protected, as Earth could easily be taken out if we are unlucky to not notice a meteor in time. Also we have evidence from all the planets around us.

Twenty-five years ago, humanity first witnessed a collision between a comet and a planet. From July 16 to 22, 1994, enormous pieces of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (SL9), discovered just a year prior, crashed into Jupiter over several days, creating huge, dark scars in the planet’s atmosphere and lofting superheated plumes into its stratosphere.

The SL9 impact gave scientists the opportunity to study a new celestial phenomenon. It was also a wake-up call that big collisions still occur in the solar system – after all, if Jupiter was vulnerable, maybe Earth is, too. Had the comet hit Earth instead, it could have created a global atmospheric disaster, much like the impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

I don't understand what you mean by adding together some ages from a book. Could you elaborate on that some more?

The list I posted to you with all the names from Jesus to Adam, if you add the ages together as they appear in the bible, you get to roughly 6000 years, if im not mistaken.

What would verify the book to be accurate or true, in your view?

I would like to see claims made in it being demonstrated as being true.

Seems to me you are interpreting Newton's words to fit your argument. I do not see anything there saying that Newton invoked God, because he could not find an explaination.
What i see, is Newton making a statement based on the evidence, and saying, in other words, what Romans 1:20 says - that the evidence is so clears, as to be refuted.

Well that is correct, that it is what he is saying. Except that we now know he was wrong, because Einstein explained it. So when Newton said "could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." we know that such being is not needed, it has a prefect natural explanation.

 

[Nimos]

The Bible itself gives evidence that there is a creator.

It gives you nothing but trivial information. The bible is true because God exist, God exist because the bible say so. These information is irrelevant for the claim whether or not any of these are true. You might as well just say, "God exist because the bible say so." No one is going to accept that claim.

1. Why sex? The Bible answers.

But that doesn't demonstrate that what the bible say is true or that God exist.

2. No man can precisely predict in exact detail, what will happen far into the future, and in sequence... Unless fill the blank.

No, but humans can make qualified guesses. And the bible doesn't exactly go into great details about its predictions, nothing seems especially amazing here I think.

3. It is impossible for 20 men of different backgrounds, locations, and time periods, to write portions of a script, that when combined into one, harmonious to a T, relating to one single theme, and message, which follows a sequence, or series.... Unless fill the blank.

Why would that be the case? From what we know, these people used the same sources and often get them wrong in comparison to each other, some have certain information while others don't. Some give accounts that are basically impossible for anyone to know. Like when Jesus were tempted by Satan. Yet we know exactly what they talked about. Clearly the writers weren't there, so where did they get these information's?

4. No living being could tell us accurately what was not known scientifically, in an era where legends and myths were rife.... Unless fill the blank.

Well a lot of things you can guess even without being able to have a scientific explanation of how they work. How would ancient people know that plants needed water to survive, they didn't know in scientific details how they worked? But its not exactly difficult to figure out that these two things are connected in some way, people might not have had the same deep knowledge of things as we have today, but they weren't living in caves either banging two stones together. The romans for instance were evidently very advanced technologically, yet they did not believe in God of the bible, same with the Egyptians, Babylonians etc.

5. No one can accurately relate events of the past... Unless fill the blank.

Obviously this would be difficult, but there were maybe writers that did, because we have their writings. Obviously it is difficult for us to know the exact truth, which is why historians will try to find evidence for these stories.

6. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Knowing the course of wisdom, before experience is not possible... Unless fill the blank.

Not sure what that means.

 

[nPeace]

It gives you nothing but trivial information. The bible is true because God exist,

That certainly is a true statement. Logical too, because if God did not exist, the bible would not prove to be true, but it does.

God exist because the bible say so.

No. that is totally.... Where in the world did you come up with that?

These information is irrelevant for the claim whether or not any of these are true. You might as well just say, "God exist because the bible say so." No one is going to accept that claim.

Well you are the one making such eronious (putting it mildly) statements. So it's no wonder.

But that doesn't demonstrate that what the bible say is true or that God exist.

It's just one thing Nimos.

No, but humans can make qualified guesses.

Please. Give me one example of a qualified guess where man has precisely predicted in exact detail, what will happen far into the future.

And the bible doesn't exactly go into great details about its predictions, nothing seems especially amazing here I think.

I won't laugh, but this sounds like a joke. Many people have not studied the Bible.

Why would that be the case? From what we know, these people used the same sources and often get them wrong in comparison to each other, so have certain information while others don't. Some give accounts that are basically impossible for anyone to know. Like when Jesus were tempted by Satan. Yet we know exactly what they talked about. Clearly the writers weren't there, so where did they get these information's?

Maybe you ignored what I said.
Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Luke, John.... One message. One theme. different locations. different time periods.... 1500 years plus.

Well a lot of things you can guess even without being able to have a scientific explanation of how they work. How would ancient people know that plants needed water to survive, they didn't know in scientific details how they worked? But its not exactly difficult to figure out that these two things are connected in some way, people might not have had the same deep knowledge of things as we have today, but they weren't living in caves either banging two stones together. The romans for instance were evidently very advanced

technologically, yet they did not believe in God of the bible, same with the Egyptians, Babylonians etc.
Well if I live on earth, I can experience things, and learn. That's different to knowing what happens beyond earth, in outer space. Man didn't know much about the moon, or Mars, until fairly recent. In fact, they only built crafts to leave earth's outer atmosphere very recent.
So comparing watering plants to knowing that the universe began to exist, and knowing the earth is not resting on the back of mythical animals, is quite impressive for "goat herders".

Obviously this would be difficult, but there were maybe writers that did, because we have their writings. Obviously it is difficult for us to know the exact truth, which is why historians will try to find evidence for these stories.

Ah. We have their writings. There were there. thank you.

Not sure what that means.

That's okay. It wouldn't matter.

 

[nPeace]

Oh. @Nimos I only just saw your first post. Will address it when I return.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That certainly is a true statement. Logical too, because if God did not exist, the bible would not prove to be true, but it does.

No, it clearly does not. It only seems that way when one counts the near hits, "hits" that are actually misses, and very rare real hits. Meanwhile ignoring all of the misses.

No. that is totally.... Where in the world did you come up with that?

From you.

Well you are the one making such eronious (putting it mildly) statements. So it's no wonder.

Backwards as usual.

It's just one thing Nimos.

I know. The fails of the Bible are almost endless.

Please. Give me one example of a qualified guess where man has precisely predicted in exact detail, what will happen far into the future.

Please give us one example where the Bible did that. One rule, massive reinterpretation is not allowed.

I won't laugh, but this sounds like a joke. Many people have not studied the Bible.

Including Christian literalists. People that live in glass houses.

Maybe you ignored what I said.
Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Luke, John.... One message. One theme. different locations. different time periods.... 1500 years plus.

No, changing theme. And no, the time period is closer to 500 years. Part of studying the Bible is studying its history.

technologically, yet they did not believe in God of the bible, same with the Egyptians, Babylonians etc.
Well if I live on earth, I can experience things, and learn. That's different to knowing what happens beyond earth, in outer space. Man didn't know much about the moon, or Mars, until fairly recent. In fact, they only built crafts to leave earth's outer atmosphere very recent.
So comparing watering plants to knowing that the universe began to exist, and knowing the earth is not resting on the back of mythical animals, is quite impressive for "goat herders".

Sorry, but you really cannot try to use science to defend the Bible when you deny so much of it. And you are ignoring all of the science that the Bible got wrong. The Earth is not Flat.

Ah. We have their writings. There were there. thank you.

No, you don't and no they weren't. At least for huge chunks of the Bible. Once again, you should study its history.

 

[Nimos]

Well you are the one making such eronious (putting it mildly) statements. So it's no wonder.

It is not, remove the bible and there is no foundation for the biblical God, Jesus, Moses. How would you ever arrive at the conclusion that this God is true without the bible?

Please. Give me one example of a qualified guess where man has precisely predicted in exact detail, what will happen far into the future.

That the sun will eventually consume Earth, that is a 7.5 billion year prediction, that is pretty good I will say

How high will the sea level rise by 2050?
In fact, sea levels have risen faster over the last hundred years than any time in the last 3,000 years. This acceleration is expected to continue. A further 15-25cm of sea level rise is expected by 2050, with little sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions between now and then.

Maybe you ignored what I said.
Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Luke, John.... One message. One theme. different locations. different time periods.... 1500 years plus.

Yes based off each other, should you ask a Christian priest to write a book for the bible now, they could use the scriptures as references and make it fit into the story. I don't see why you think that is so amazing?
Its not like these people were completely unaware of each other or the stories, who God was, Moses etc.

That's different to knowing what happens beyond earth, in outer space. Man didn't know much about the moon, or Mars, until fairly recent. In fact, they only built crafts to leave earth's outer atmosphere very recent.

But they didn't know what happened in outer space. Genesis speak of the moon as one of lights, when its no more of a light than Earth is, it simply reflect the light from the sun, but they didn't know that.

Genesis 1:16
16 - And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

And the order is all wrong, the Sun were created before Earth and the other planets to keep them in orbit and not the other way around. There wouldn't have been any vegetation here before the Sun existed as Genesis also claim, they simply wouldn't have been able to survive.

So comparing watering plants to knowing that the universe began to exist, and knowing the earth is not resting on the back of mythical animals, is quite impressive for "goat herders".

If that is not the same, then they should also have known that you can not cover all plants and trees in salt water and expect them to survive. Fish as well would have died, either the salt water ones or the freshwater ones, only few of them are capable of living in both environments. So it might sound logic to us, because we know that this is the case and can explain the reason for it. But apparently it weren't for the bible writers, when they decided to write that God flooded the whole Earth and expected it to make sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's interesting.
Now I know that you are not more than a hundred years old. So there is no way you are able to demonstrate that there were any god-of-the-gaps, but I think history, as well as the evidence we keep discovering shows clearly, that those gaps do not exist.
Rather, it is the case that persons want to form gaps, and fill them with their philosophies... empty philosophies, to be more precise.
The links you provided, are an example of such philosophy.
"Let's just say whatever we want, because we are allowed to. Those in agreement will gravitate to it, because it fits their worldview."

Hmm, well get back to me when you actually want to discuss what I said. You clearly didn't really think it through very far.

 

[nPeace]

It is not, remove the bible and there is no foundation for the biblical God, Jesus, Moses. How would you ever arrive at the conclusion that this God is true without the bible?

Um. How could there be a "biblical God" without a Bible? Are you okay Nimos?

That the sun will eventually consume Earth, that is a 7.5 billion year prediction, that is pretty good I will say

That has not happened. Sorry. What a big fail.

How high will the sea level rise by 2050?
In fact, sea levels have risen faster over the last hundred years than any time in the last 3,000 years. This acceleration is expected to continue. A further 15-25cm of sea level rise is expected by 2050, with little sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions between now and then.

That has not happened. Failed again. Sorry.

Yes based off each other, should you ask a Christian priest to write a book for the bible now, they could use the scriptures as references and make it fit into the story. I don't see why you think that is so amazing?
Its not like these people were completely unaware of each other or the stories, who God was, Moses etc.

Ah. So when it comes to evidence supporting scriptural truth, it's all coincidences, or conspiracies.
When it comes to your beliefs in science babble, it's all smooth sailing - no coincidences, nor conspiracies. In fact, to even suggest that, one should be hung by the neck, until dead.

In that case, I'll tell you what.... We can go our separate ways on this topic - you dismissing evidence presented to you, and according to you, I dismissing evidence presented to me... which is nothing more than science babble.
Continuing would only prove to be a useless exercise, and time wasting with you waving your hand, and going "Bah", and I doing the same. Agreed?

But they didn't know what happened in outer space. Genesis speak of the moon as one of lights, when its no more of a light than Earth is, it simply reflect the light from the sun, but they didn't know that.

The moon serves as a light, in case you don't know. Thus, it is a light... in case you don't know.
Need some help. Has the words "firelight" ever passed your lips? Yes. When you look at a fire, you see a light. So too the moon.
Disagreed?

Genesis 1:16
16 - And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

And the order is all wrong, the Sun were created before Earth and the other planets to keep them in orbit and not the other way around. There wouldn't have been any vegetation here before the Sun existed as Genesis also claim, they simply wouldn't have been able to survive.

Genesis does not claim the sun was created after the earth.
However, I would not be surprised to hear a lifelong Atheist say such a thing, or one who have not taken the time to study the Bible with an opened mind.

If that is not the same, then they should also have known that you can not cover all plants and trees in salt water and expect them to survive. Fish as well would have died, either the salt water ones or the freshwater ones, only few of them are capable of living in both environments. So it might sound logic to us, because we know that this is the case and can explain the reason for it. But apparently it weren't for the bible writers, when they decided to write that God flooded the whole Earth and expected it to make sense.

You sound like an expert on these things, so I have a few questions I would like to get your expert opinion on.
A yes or no answer is sufficient for now.
1. Can trees survive in salt water
2. Can fish survive in both salt and "fresh" water, and can sea water fish live in "fresh" water, and visa versa?

If your answer is "yes", or you prefer to say some, then I think you might as well not have said what you did.
However, let's hear you.

 

[nPeace]

Hmm, well get back to me when you actually want to discuss what I said. You clearly didn't really think it through very far.

I'll go talk to my nephew first, based on your response.

 

[nPeace]

No, my point is that you claim an authority in regards to how one ought to understand scriptures, when no such thing is valid. For instance a YEC will claim that the Earth is 6000 years old using the scriptures and other means to back up their claim or that Adam and Eve was in fact the first people on Earth because that is what the bible say. They just as you did, could equally claim that your position is not valid and therefore not a true Christian.

Unless they or you can verify your claim, neither of you can say the other part is wrong, it is simply your or theirs opinion about what a true Christian is, equally those in earlier periods of history had a different view of what true Christianity were, that it was fine to burn witches etc. Because we know that the bible do not like these and that God think that they should be killed.

So my point is, that science at least gives us a method to test and validate claims, obviously a lot of people will disagree with the findings, such as a YEC will say that science do not support an old Earth, that some say that evolution is wrong etc. Yet these people selectively choose which part they like or don't like, disregarding the methods of how these things are figured out. So when you say that those earlier Christians got it wrong and supply no method or reason for why they are wrong, except that you think they are. Because clearly they and the YEC uses the bible as well to back up their claims.

Scientists use the same scientific method, and come up with different interpretations.
Honestly Nimos, I think I am done, because you are seeing only one side, and missing the point entirely... which I emphasized. This is too exhausting, and using up time i need to use otherwise.
One can use a document, to determine truth. That's why there are people studying ancient texts, and documents.

That is not exactly correct. I could make an experiment and that demonstrate that you need fire in order to burn things. You read my paper and how I performed my experiment and do the same test and you get the same result. Several other people do the same and also reach the same conclusion. When enough data have been collected it is reasonable to conclude that fire does in fact causes things to burn. Some might come along and notice that, things can burn even without fire, simply if the temperature is high enough it can cause things to burn, so you don't actually need a flame from a fire. It doesn't disprove that fire causes things to burn, but simply add to our understanding of what can cause things to burn. Anyone at any point, can question how these experiments were performed or find errors in them, find flaws in how the data were used etc. Which is why science is a process and the main purpose of science is not to tell us what is true, even though that is also part of it, but more importantly it is to tell us what is definitely not true. For instance water will not cause something to burn, doesn't mean that nothing will ever burn, simply that water is definitely not going to do it.


Honestly have no clue. I think they are a lot more agnostics than I am. I do know that my mom is atheist as well, that is the only one im certain of.


Yes agree. I don't know what the deal is with the tailbone and whether studies show that our ancient ancestors did have tails or not, but you could examine that and see what evidence there is for or against that position, I simply don't know it so have no opinion about it, as I haven't looked into it. But I do agree with you, that I see no reason to speculate about it either way until I actually know what information there is about it.


I don't really see a need to prove that is is a top down approach in regards to the scriptures that you have linked to. Because the claim start with you having to accept the presumption that God exist and I don't accept that it has been demonstrated.

But should we pretend that I did accept it. Then it is top to bottom as everything comes from God, he created it which means that it is a guided process. Whereas evolution from what we see is a none guided process, things evolve based on changes in their environment etc. Meaning the polar bear didn't get thick fur, because it wanted to migrate to colder areas, but got it as a result of colder areas and it had to adapt or go extinct.


Well in that case, I would consider them to look unearthly, meaning no buttons, strange language etc. But I doubt, I would be confused about whether something were intentionally designed or not. But you are correct that ultimately given that I haven't seen it, I would not know with absolute certainty. But to me, that is a silly way to reason as the evident for them being designed by humans are overwhelming.


If, I recall correctly this was about you saying that God is securing or protecting us? (Its been a while so might remember wrong) But simply that we do not seem to be very well protected, as Earth could easily be taken out if we are unlucky to not notice a meteor in time. Also we have evidence from all the planets around us.

Twenty-five years ago, humanity first witnessed a collision between a comet and a planet. From July 16 to 22, 1994, enormous pieces of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 (SL9), discovered just a year prior, crashed into Jupiter over several days, creating huge, dark scars in the planet’s atmosphere and lofting superheated plumes into its stratosphere.

The SL9 impact gave scientists the opportunity to study a new celestial phenomenon. It was also a wake-up call that big collisions still occur in the solar system – after all, if Jupiter was vulnerable, maybe Earth is, too. Had the comet hit Earth instead, it could have created a global atmospheric disaster, much like the impact event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

The list I posted to you with all the names from Jesus to Adam, if you add the ages together as they appear in the bible, you get to roughly 6000 years, if im not mistaken.


I would like to see claims made in it being demonstrated as being true.


Well that is correct, that it is what he is saying. Except that we now know he was wrong, because Einstein explained it. So when Newton said "could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." we know that such being is not needed, it has a prefect natural explanation.

Mankind being on the earth roughly 6000 years, has nothing to do with the age of earth.

Don't get me wrong. Though it is at times somewhat frustrating (I assume it could be for you also), I don't mind talking to you, but I seriously don't have the time for going in circles, and in my opinion seeing you try your best to knock the ball back over, at any cost, even when it goes into the trees, instead of on court.
Nice talking to you.
We might do it some time soon again, but for now, I really don't have that time.