That is certainly your perogative and your right. I certainly would not try to force you to change your mind. If you have all of the facts, and then make your decision. That is up to you.
That's exactly how I came to my conclusion.
Then why are we always discussing the bible?
It's fascinating to see how people rationalize their belief in the bible with all the contradictions in it.
Even the creation of (young) earth can't be supported by science.
There's nothing in science that supports a world flood in 2403BC.
What follows are commands and teachings that are followed by contradictory commands.
I'm not sure how the religious reconcile the command of their god to stone unbelievers and hommosexuals and not comply.
I don't understand how anybody with any humanistic belief can discriminate against homosexuals, women, and approve salvery - as commanded by the bible god.
How the religious rationalize all this is fascinating.
When the religious pushes legislation to impose their religious belief on the rest of society, I have a big problem with it.
I believe in a secular country where the power of our government is not used to write legislation based on religious beliefs that affects all of its citizens.
The believers of the bible have wrought humanity with much suffering in history and in contemporary times. I see no benefit and much consequence.
cicerone imposter wrote:That the bible states that everybody faces death proves what, exactly?
It does more than that. It explains why we grow old and die. And it tells us what God has promised to do about it.
cicerone imposter wrote:
Even the creation of (young) earth can't be supported by science.
If you mean by direct observation, then you are correct. However the same is true regarding the idea of an old (6+ billion years) Earth.
Both young earth and old earth proponents deal primarily with circumstantial evidence from which inferences are drawn.
what makes a religion so believeable? Just because someone claims that they have spoken to god does not make them right. I have a bum around the corner from my house who says he talks to god but is he the next Jesus or Muhammad or Moses? no. Hes just the bum around the corner. I believe in evolution because there is a tangibility to it. You can see the progression of evolution through scientific evidence. While it is merely the THEORY of evolution, there is no concrete evidence for the existance of a higher power, until there is I'm one of Darwin's biggest fans.
sublimabean wrote:what makes a religion so believeable? Just because someone claims that they have spoken to god does not make them right. I have a bum around the corner from my house who says he talks to god but is he the next Jesus or Muhammad or Moses? no. Hes just the bum around the corner. I believe in evolution because there is a tangibility to it. You can see the progression of evolution through scientific evidence. While it is merely the THEORY of evolution, there is no concrete evidence for the existance of a higher power, until there is I'm one of Darwin's biggest fans.
Hi Lima,
Welcome to A2K. Hope you enjoy it here.
Let me ask you: If I were to refer you to a "bum" who lives near me who believes wholeheartedly in evolution, would that make Darwin's ideas any less credible in your view?
What exactly do you refer to when you say there is a "tangibility" to evolution. Is evolution something you can touch or observe? Have you ever observed evolution taking place?
sublimabean, Welcome to a2k. Dig in your heels, and stay awhile.
real life, I believe it is called deductive reasoning. On what empirical grounds does creationism based itself on? It is a belief based on faith, not science.
Ray wrote:real life, I believe it is called deductive reasoning. On what empirical grounds does creationism based itself on? It is a belief based on faith, not science.
On what empirical grounds do you base evolution? Have you or anyone else observed it? If not, why do you try to hold creation to a standard that you cannot meet yourself with evolution?
Neither creation nor evolution has been observed. Both draw largely from inferential interpretation of circumstantial evidence.
real lifeQuote:Both young earth and old earth proponents deal primarily with circumstantial evidence from which inferences are drawn.
Weve now gone full circle.With this point we're about where real life came in. He first began his involvement by posting AIG threads that denied the validity ofgeochronometry and radioactive decay rates.
Im not sure that there is even a scintilla of evidence (circumstantial or whatever) that supports a young earth. To let this belief ascend such a high point of conclusion by deductive reasoning is quite specious
Rosbourne979 Wrote:
Quote:And that all the fears christians have about sin and guilt are just aspects of their own personalities which are being played upon by the collective authors of an ancient superstition.
Ros, could you please tell me what fears you are speaking of here?
I wonder if vol_fan06 knew his post would outlast his participation in the forum.
sublimabean; welcome to the forum. Have you ever met subsuccotash? Just wondering.
farmer; good to have you back. I'm so happy I don't have to explain words like geochronometry to my friend, Joe Sixpack. Although Joe does seem to understand that the book of Genesis allows for a humongously old earth - billions of years - youbetcha. And I personally have never understood how radioactive decay rates could be considered constant if, as many scientists believe, there was once considerably more water vapor in the atmosphere than currently. Wouldn't this have an effect on the decay rate vis a vis the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth? Just a guess, you know. After all, I'm just an ignorant hick from New Jersey.
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:
Quote:It's fascinating to see how people rationalize their belief in the bible with all the contradictions in it.
Even the creation of (young) earth can't be supported by science.
There's nothing in science that supports a world flood in 2403BC.
What follows are commands and teachings that are followed by contradictory commands.
I'm not sure how the religious reconcile the command of their god to stone unbelievers and hommosexuals and not comply.
I don't understand how anybody with any humanistic belief can discriminate against homosexuals, women, and approve salvery - as commanded by the bible god.
How the religious rationalize all this is fascinating.
When the religious pushes legislation to impose their religious belief on the rest of society, I have a big problem with it.
I believe in a secular country where the power of our government is not used to write legislation based on religious beliefs that affects all of its citizens.
The believers of the bible have wrought humanity with much suffering in history and in contemporary times. I see no benefit and much consequence.
Haven't we already been through this with you, uh, like a hundred times? You still have not provided those contradictions you keep telling us about. The ones you tried to provide were shown to not be contradictions because of the circumstances. I'm sure we'd still be willing to discuss these. You going to show them to us or just keep throwing this out there without back up?
CI is as diligent in posting straw men as he is in ignoring their going down in flames.
He hasn't provided it because he can't. At least we have come to see that CI's main hate is for his government. It seems that religion gets kicked because he does, by his own admission, not understand.
Ezekiel 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
Yes, I'll admit I've hated the Bushco government from the time he took office. He's brought us nothing but ruin.
We'll see if I'm right or wrong when Fitzgerald completes his investigation this week. I'm sure you Bushco fans will be running with your tails between your legs.
cicerone imposter wrote:Yes, I'll admit I've hated the Bushco government from the time he took office. He's brought us nothing but ruin.
We'll see if I'm right or wrong when Fitzgerald completes his investigation this week. I'm sure you Bushco fans will be running with your tails between your legs.
C.I.,
Oh the old change the subject tactic? Do you think no one sees this, C.I.?
Are you going to back up your contradictions or not? Or are you just going to keep deflecting (well, trying to deflect)? You surely wouldn't let 'us' get away with doing that. Why should we let you?
My contradictions. ROFLMAO
