The bible

[Saru Inc]

I'm new to this thread, so I'm working off the first post. Feel free to ignore whatever isn't relevant 54 pages later. :thumbup:

 

 

 

It also reads a bit randomly, sorry about that...

 

According to the bible, the world is 6000 years old. Yet, it is PROVEN the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Fossils, examinations of the earths crust say that the world is billions of years old. Some people with a voice in their head is all the proof it is 6000 years old.

I've always been curious about this bit...

 

 

 

• [1]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2]Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
   
   
   
  [3] And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. [4] God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. [5] God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.

 

 

 

Is there a break between verse 1 and 2, or 2 and 3? If there is, Genesis gives God credit for Creation, but does not begin the Seven Days of Creation until the creation of Light, meaning that the base form of the Earth COULD have occurred an insanely long time ago and remained as a lump of rock since. This doesn't solve the starlight problem, or the fact that dinosaur bones are hypothetically buried in rock that would long predate a 6-10K year timeline; in fact it doesn't help at all, and is pretty irrelevant. I've just been thinking over it for awhile.

 

One example is the ancient egyptions. They did not have the science and technology to know how the sun rose and set, it appeared to them to move across the sky. So they invented a god that moved the sun across the sky. Today we know that is [cabbage], and the Earth revolves around the sun - which is why it appears to move across the sky. We know this because of the science and technology we have today.

 

If "technology" to you is Aristotle and Co. pointing out that the shadow cast by the earth during an eclipse was spherical, and then Aristarchus and Eratosthenes gallivanting across 500 miles of desert to compare the angle of shadows in Syene and Alexandria on the Summer Solstice in order to calculate the circumference of the earth, then yes. But from my point of view all technology does is help us test or better analyze what we can first reason to be true. It's a tool, not a magic bullet that gives 100% answers 100% of the time. I'll always subject technology to reason, because that's the only way its useful.

 

 

 

When someone says "it was once common sense that the Earth was flat" in an effort to refute the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of Creationism, think about it. A hundred years from now I'm sure many things we consider to be "common knowledge" will be refuted, and then Creationists then might be using that same argument against the acceptance of Evolutionary theory. \

 

 

 

 

 

No, about the Genesis; what I think it's saying is: He created it, but it was shapeless, there's no break, it was just describing it before God made it.

 

 

 

What I find funny is, people swear by the sword that all those Greek Philospohers were the 'best.' Yet they were around the same time as the Bible, how can one be true and one not?

 

 

 

And Reb, have fun when you meet Real Life.

 

 

 

EDIT: What's Godel's Theorem?

[purfishx]

 

Ridicule of anyone is never justified.

 

 

 

ughh.... :roll:

[Quoi_Tu]

What I find funny is, people swear by the sword that all those Greek Philospohers were the 'best.' Yet they were around the same time as the Bible, how can one be true and one not?

 

 

 

Well now, that's just a silly argument/statement. Rethink that and edit, s'il vous plait.

[Rebdragon]

And Reb, have fun when you meet Real Life.

 

Haha, I love this diss. It insinuates that the user of said diss believes that there must be some kind of divide between time spent on the computer and time not, when in reality this is not the case for healthy people who do not delve into internet escapism. Generally this comes unwarrented, usually in cases where strong animosity is present rather than any kind of justification for admitting that said disser believes they are "escaping RL" by being on the computer.

 

 

 

It's like dissing oneself almost.

[Kill_Thomas9]

I have to point out to you that the bible is a compilation of writings. Not just one writing.

 

When it is said

On the first day He created [such and such]

, that isn't necessarily the same person speaking as when it is said

It rained for forty days and forty nights

.

 

 

 

Aside from that, the words

The world was created in six days

could easily be figurative language, meaning the world was created in six chunks of time. One could even view the statement as just a way of stating that God created all that exists, not portraying any sort of time frame at all.

 

 

 

I just thought I would point out how you are being a bit of a hypocrite saying that this thread is only for discussing the bible, and then going into a comparison between Jesus and the Egyptians.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, the sun rises and sets because the Earth is turning, not because the Earth is revolving around the sun. This causes different seasons, not different times of day.

[Saru Inc]

And Reb, have fun when you meet Real Life.

 

Haha, I love this diss. It insinuates that the user of said diss believes that there must be some kind of divide between time spent on the computer and time not, when in reality this is not the case for healthy people who do not delve into internet escapism. Generally this comes unwarrented, usually in cases where strong animosity is present rather than any kind of justification for admitting that said disser believes they are "escaping RL" by being on the computer.

 

 

 

It's like dissing oneself almost.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say that; don't insinuate from what was never there.

 

 

 

What I mean is, that, when you get out into the real world, you'll be forced to work with people with different beliefs then you. o.o omg. And guess what, you can't diss them! For all you know, your next boss, may be a die hard fundamentalist Christian, and you know what, if you want to keep that job, you have to realize, that people CAN believe differently from you, and that does not make them irrational babbling idiots.

 

 

 

And Kill_Thomas, while yes, it can mean this, it also may not. ;) It may mean exactly what it says.

[Rebdragon]

I'm probably going to be a scientist of some kind, so if my boss believed the same things you do I'd probably have to quit. You know, on the grounds that they'd be an irrational babbling idiot when it comes to their job.

 

 

 

Although, the condescending lecturing attitude coming from someone of your age to someone of an older one when it comes to "the real world" is most amusing. So please, continue.

[Saru Inc]

I'm probably going to be a scientist of some kind, so if my boss believed the same things you do I'd probably have to quit. You know, on the grounds that they'd be an irrational babbling idiot when it comes to their job.

 

 

 

Although, the condescending lecturing attitude coming from someone of your age to someone of an older one when it comes to "the real world" is most amusing. So please, continue.

 

 

 

 

 

Of my age?

 

 

 

 

 

And you're missing the point, which will forever elude you.

[Rebdragon]

COOKIE MONSTER

 

 

OM NOM NOM NOM.

 

 

 

[TheBatman]

Dude just imagine if some guy named Saruman decided to start a cult and his followers wrote a crapload of testaments about him and called it The Lord of the Rings and centuries later we're all like yeaaah saruman is the [cabbage]. saruman is up in heaven right now smiling down on me. Praise saruman. I'm gonna pray to saruman for a wii for christmas plz saruman. What?? Science says rings dont have magical powers? BUT HAVEN'T YOU READ LOTR?

[Saru Inc]

Dude just imagine if some guy named Saruman decided to start a cult and his followers wrote a crapload of testaments about him and called it The Lord of the Rings and centuries later we're all like yeaaah saruman is the [cabbage]. saruman is up in heaven right now smiling down on me. Praise saruman. I'm gonna pray to saruman for a wii for christmas plz saruman. What?? Science says rings dont have magical powers? BUT HAVEN'T YOU READ LOTR?

 

 

 

 

 

I hate lotr. >.> I made ths username for rs in 2001. Ugh.

[l0rd]

Debate in this thread is pointless, a belief so important to most people is too embedded into them. I'm an Atheist, but to me it seems pointless to try to persuade someone to believe that there is no god. When it comes down to it, facts just don't get across and it just brings out the worst in people when such conflicts occur.

[zunee_boy]

2 things, 1 pro-Bible, and another anti-Bible.

 

 

 

In the book of Job it actually refers to the rotation of the Earth around the Sun.

 

 

 

Another thing is that Sol Invictus and Jesus were both allegedly born on the 25th of December. Both Pagan and Christian religion had an infant entity. The sign of Marduk was a sword turned point down, which is *dramatic music* a cross! OMFG!!!

 

 

 

Pwntthxkaibai.

[Serpent Eye]

I hold no belief in the Bible any longer... but I think some of its messages need to be taken with a grain of salt...

 

 

 

After all, this is a book that condones stoning women with short hair to death.

[purfishx]

I hold no belief in the Bible any longer... but I think some of its messages need to be taken with a grain of salt...

 

 

 

After all, this is a book that condones stoning women with short hair to death.

 

 

 

 

 

Um, I won't even bother.

[Quoi_Tu]

Another thing is that Sol Invictus and Jesus were both allegedly born on the 25th of December. Both Pagan and Christian religion had an infant entity. The sign of Marduk was a sword turned point down, which is *dramatic music* a cross! OMFG!!!

 

 

 

Pwntthxkaibai.

 

 

 

What's your point? A good read: Mithraism and Christianity

[Serpent Eye]

I hold no belief in the Bible any longer... but I think some of its messages need to be taken with a grain of salt...

 

 

 

After all, this is a book that condones stoning women with short hair to death.

 

 

 

 

 

Um, I won't even bother.

 

 

 

Among other things, anyways...

 

 

 

What I mean to say is, the Bible is full of outdated moral principles, that we shouldn't expect anyone to follow in these modern times. It suggests outlandish things, like possessed pigs, and ressurrecting people from the dead - it also says we should follow what some today would consider to be weird practices, like not eating any cloven-hoofed animals.

 

 

 

I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible - I'm not. I just... don't think that anyone should read it as a strict guideline to life - there are a lot of grey areas in it, up for multiple interpretations. It's more of a skeleton to life, and we, as individuals, have to fill in the fleshy bits.

[pureprayer]

http://www.godandscience.org/

[l0rd]

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

 

 

[/thread]

 

 

 

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

[pureprayer]

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

 

 

 

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

 

Thats one of the reasons i posted it

[Saru Inc]

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

 

 

[/thread]

 

 

 

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I don't get, no offence Pio, I'm just using you as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

Why does it matter? I understand that bias websites are bias and usually shade their evidence, but what about when you post sites that 'prove' evolution and 'disprove' creationism? Aren't those bias in the same way?

[l0rd]

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

 

 

[/thread]

 

 

 

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I don't get, no offence Pio, I'm just using you as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

Why does it matter? I understand that bias websites are bias and usually shade their evidence, but what about when you post sites that 'prove' evolution and 'disprove' creationism? Aren't those bias in the same way?

 

 

 

First off, the context in which he posted the link implied that it should please both sides of the debate, with him saying "[/thread]".

 

 

 

Secondly, the context in which I post sites is to support my argument. Also I'd hardly consider scientific theories bias, whether your a theist or not, you gotta consider the validity of quantum physics and the like.

[Cup Lion]

COOKIE MONSTER

 

 

OM NOM NOM NOM.

 

 

 

 

Simply Lmao. You are a character, Reb. :lol:

[Saru Inc]

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

 

 

[/thread]

 

 

 

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I don't get, no offence Pio, I'm just using you as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

Why does it matter? I understand that bias websites are bias and usually shade their evidence, but what about when you post sites that 'prove' evolution and 'disprove' creationism? Aren't those bias in the same way?

 

 

 

First off, the context in which he posted the link implied that it should please both sides of the debate, with him saying "[/thread]".

 

 

 

Secondly, the context in which I post sites is to support my argument. Also I'd hardly consider scientific theories bias, whether your a theist or not, you gotta consider the validity of quantum physics and the like.

 

 

 

Oh, well I never clicked on the link. But, what I mean is, that usually when someone posts a site like TalkOrigins and the like, the site itself IS bias against Religion.

[warri0r45]

http://www.godandscience.org/

 

 

 

[/thread]

 

 

 

That is a totally bias website, despite its name, its whole purpose is to support theism. I don't even want to begin to disprove it.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I don't get, no offence Pio, I'm just using you as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

Why does it matter? I understand that bias websites are bias and usually shade their evidence, but what about when you post sites that 'prove' evolution and 'disprove' creationism? Aren't those bias in the same way?

 

 

 

First off, the context in which he posted the link implied that it should please both sides of the debate, with him saying "[/thread]".

 

 

 

Secondly, the context in which I post sites is to support my argument. Also I'd hardly consider scientific theories bias, whether your a theist or not, you gotta consider the validity of quantum physics and the like.

 

 

 

Oh, well I never clicked on the link. But, what I mean is, that usually when someone posts a site like TalkOrigins and the like, the site itself IS bias against Religion.

 

 

 

Since when does creationism = (all of) religion? All TalkOrigins seeks to do is debunk creationism, not religion, and it does a pretty good job as far as I'm concerned considering it actually backs up its claims with sound science and links to peer reviewed research. I've generally found that creationist material seriously skews the relevant science and misrepresents evolution. That's all creationism really can do to attempt and debunk evolution, considering it is sound science.