Bible vs. Science

I find it so strange that some will accept "it does not take any stretch of the imagination to say that such an ark-finding story could generate millions of dollars for the ministry leaders." and yet throw out the fact that there are others that would generate anything to try to discredit, etc. If "one" can do it one way, then logic says others could do it the other way.

But, that is usually poo poo'd. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I find it so strange that some will accept "it does not take any stretch of the imagination to say that such an ark-finding story could generate millions of dollars for the ministry leaders." and yet throw out the fact that there are others that would generate anything to try to discredit, etc. If "one" can do it one way, then logic says others could do it the other way.

But, that is usually poo poo'd.

Who are the "others that would generate anything to discredit"?

0 Replies

megamanXplosion,

I didn't mean you by that statement. There are plenty that would do anything to discredit the Bible or God. That's just a fact of life, just as there are those that would use God for their own agenda.

0 Replies

As usual MA has it all topsy turvey. No scientist , (At least none that I know of) has tried to have science inserted into religious training. Its a one sided equation that she is trying to justify.
Noone has "gone out of their ways" to discredit the Bible in any fashion. Scientists, for the most part, dont involve themselves with these things.

However The incorporated business arms of the fundamentalists , the ICR and the Discovery Institute, have been trying , for years, to have religious worldviews inserted into standard science training in our already sad school systems. They, the ICRs and Discovery Institutes, had fired the very first salvos and had tried to push religion as science and have been crying " most foul" whenever they lose in court(which, for the most part, has been all the time). MA is just crying foul and is venting some frusration over the most recent court outcomes.

Science only discredits myths when the perps of the myths try to make the rest of us buy into the bases of these myths. The aearch for the ARk has gone on since early in the Middle Ages .

0 Replies

I don't even know what court outcomes you are talking about. Fine, no one in the world is doing a single thing to discredit God, the Bible, etc. Now, who's being naive? Even I am not that blind!

And I don't know what your problem is with me but if you can't just tell me flat out what it is and try to resolve it then we don't have anything else to discuss. I'm not battling with you or anyone else.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

megamanXplosion,

I didn't mean you by that statement. There are plenty that would do anything to discredit the Bible or God. That's just a fact of life, just as there are those that would use God for their own agenda.

I didn't think you were referring to me. I merely asked for a clarification. Are you referring to the Bible scholars, historians, mythologists, linguists, and source critics that worked together to flesh out the documentary hypothesis? Are you referring to geologists and biogeographists who have extensively studied the geological and biological history of regions near Iran? Are you referring to the archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians who have extensively studied human culture and how their findings relate to the findings of the geologists and biogeographists? Are you referring to the Christian ministers who have made it publically known that the people involved in the supposed "ark" discovery are frauds who have no accredited degrees, have lied by creating false quotes by archaeologists, have been sued by a former U.S. Ambassador due to their lies, and many other cases of fraud? Who, in relation to the discussion of the supposed "ark" discovery, will "generate anything" to "discredit" the Bible? I also want to see some hard evidence that supports your claim.

0 Replies

You want evidence? You mean to tell me you don't know of a single instance where someone has tried to discredit God or try to refute that he exists? Shocked

I wasn't talking about scientists, etc. I'm talking about anyone. And, if you want evidence, I can pull plenty of it up on these forums. Check out just about any Religion & Spirituality thread and you will find plenty trying to discredit God or refute the Bible.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

You want evidence? You mean to tell me you don't know of a single instance where someone has tried to discredit God or try to refute that he exists?

I wasn't talking about scientists, etc. I'm talking about anyone. And, if you want evidence, I can pull plenty of it up on these forums. Check out just about any Religion & Spirituality thread and you will find plenty trying to discredit God or refute the Bible.

In order for something to be discredited, it must first have some cred to begin with. No worries. As for the bible being refuted..just don't pay attention to what scientists or historians say, and when you read only read the bible.
That should prevent any sort of biblical refutation from crossing your horizons.

0 Replies

Hey Doc!

Well, I read more books than the Bible but thank you for the encouragement.

And I hope I'm standing next to you in line when you tell God He had no credibility to start with because He's gonna get a kick out of that one Laughing

. No one is asking you to believe.

0 Replies

Hi Momma,

Why don't you ask Doc, who thinks he is in the middle of the universe Laughing

, how scientists and historians have proven the bible wrong?

0 Replies

MOAN wrote:

I wasn't trying to insult you at all. I was stating what I discern from your posts.

No, that is not true. You don't "discern" that i am "acting dumb," you allege that that is the case. And you allege it because you are attempting to warp the topic of this thread into an attack on theism in general. It is not--it is an attack on biblical literalism. Therefore, since you personally contend that every jot and tittle of the Bobble is divininely inspired, inerrant truth, you want to assert that anyone involved in demonstrating the absurdities of an accpetance of the fairy tales in the Bobble as literal truth is equally involved in an attack on theism in general. That, however, is not the case. If you attempt to invoke divine inspiration or divine intervention in ancient events, you're going to be called to account. That was not what i had done, however--i had criticized you for attempting to frame a contention of the absurdities of the Bobble as a case of competing appeals to blind faith. That is not the case, however, when on the one hand people are giving detailed reasons for their incredulity with regard to biblical fairy tales, and on the other you come to say "well, that's just what i believe." So your attempt to claim that i am "just acting dumb" is yet another example of your complete unwillingness to acknowledge valid and painfully obvious distinctions in people's methods of approaching the topic of the thread.

Quote:

Sorry, not trying to give you orders. It's just another one of those "expressions" that I didn't really think needed explaining.

You're absolutely correct in one respect--you don't need to explain to me that when you make remarks of that character, you are being overbearing, and attempting to impose on others

Quote:

And? Has anyone tried to say differently?

Yes, indeed--you specifically stated that i was "acting dumb" because you and other theists are always asked to provide evidence of the existence of your deity, when it is well known that you cannot do so. However, this thread is not about the existence of any putatitve deity--it is about the plausibility of the stories in the Bobble. Therefore, no one was asking you to provide evidence for your deity; therefore, yes you did say differently, you asserted that i was doing that and then "playing dumb" by pretending i wasn't. There was no pretense--i only ask for evidence of the existence of your deity if you are doing to attempt to assert something which is entirely dependent upon the existence of your deity. All of my remaks before you began this flannel-mouthed tour de force was concerned with the absurdities of the Noahic flood story, so i had definitely not asked at any point that you or anyone else provide evidence for your deity.

This is typical of your rhetorical "style"--you make statements, and then subsequently deny that you've made them.

Quote:

Isn't all anyone is doing is telling you and others how they see things and why?

This is disingenuous. I have, for example, given detailed reason for why i consider the flood story to be implausible--all that you do is say "well, that's just what i believe." So you're just telling us "how you see things," but there is a world of difference between simply asserting a preference for a belief, and giving detailed reasons for rejecting the plausibility of a story. I reject the flood story because the entire concept of a man well over 100 years of age building such a vessel into which two of ever "unclean beast" and seven of every "clean beast" are to be kept safe, sound and healthy for over a year--and i've stated why in detail. FM, for example, rejects the flood story because there is no geological evidence for a planet-wide flood--and he can explain that in detail.

All you so is tell us that that is just what you believe. These are not the same at all, and represent a dramatic variance in method.

Quote:

I didn't read anywhere that anyone said anything different than what you just said in that paragraph.

You had asked if i think that, and i'm quoting you directly: "So, you think science is bigger than God?"--but you then proceeded with a series of assertions which assume that this is so. Therefore, yes, you certainly did say something significantly different than what i had written in the paragraph to which you refer.

Quote:

First, I didn't say you said it. It is what I gathered from your posts.

This is another stirling example of your constant attempts to weasel out of the positions you have previously taken. No, you did not say that i think that science is bigger than God. But having asked what was obviously a rhetorical question (we are, after all, practicing rhetoric here), you proceeded to a series of statements that that was so. There is nothing in my remarks anywhere that suggest that i think that science "is bigger than God." As i have explained, you've got apples and oranges here--science is not concerned with anything supernatural.

Quote:

And what good would God be if He wasn't supernatural? If He wasn't supernatural He would just be a human! (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

It may surprise you to learn (although it surprises me that you need to have this pointed out) that a sentient entity can be natural without being human. Your pathetic attempt at sarcasm here does not alter the signal fact that you are attempting to suggest that i consider science to be "bigger" than you god--which is not the case. Science is concerned with the investigation of natural phenomenon by naturalistic methods. Therefore, it would never occur to me to compare apples to oranges as in such an example.

Quote:

Wasn't my intention but I'll try to watch that. (i.e., to warp what others have written)

Given that such warping of what others mean or appear to mean is virtually the only weapon in your rhetorical arsenal, i don't believe this for a moment. In short, i think you're lying--an activity which have been shown in the past to indulge shamelessly.

Quote:

Definitely not trying to construct anything here.

Nonsense, when you willfully misrepresent what others have written, you are willfully constructed a strawman--whether or not you are sufficiently honest to admit it.

Quote:

From the way you post it seems very clear to me you are in effect saying, "You are right and I and those that believe are wrong."

If by "believers" you refer to everyone who takes every word of the Bobble to be inerrantly true--yes, i consider that this is not so, and i have explained in detail why i do not consider it to be so; presently, the example with which i was concerned was the flood story. Your only response is to attempt to frame this in terms of an attack on your putative deity, which is not what this thread is about at all. Take a look at how the member "real life" proceeds--even if i don't buy his replies, he at least attempts to deal with what others write point by point. You just pound your "this is just what i believe" drum, and attempt to change the subject of the thread, and to move the focus to yourself rather than the topic.

Quote:

Quote:
There is nothing bullying in pointing out the flaws in your goofy thesis. You are objecting to people for saying things which they have not said.

(Your quote of me provided for clarification.)

You're right. Others can see exactly what is being posted and they know bullying when they see it. I apologize to everyone for not giving everyone enough credit for that.

Since you seem intent on characterize what i've written as bullying, i'll point out once again that it is not bullying to point out that you have distorted what i've written, and that i'm pointing that out. That is not bullying--it is bullying to willfully characterize what people have written in a false manner.

Quote:

I don't recall saying this is a clash of equal and opposing beliefs at all. The only thing I said I think is equal is that neither of us can prove whether there is or is not a God.

You wrote, in post #2125074:

Quote:

I think the real problem I have with my beliefs being called a fairytale is because those that call it that have absolutely no more proof that it is a fairytale than I do that it isn't a fairytale. Yet, because those that believe in this "fairytale" have taken a leap of faith, others think it's ok to say such things. I think the only person I have actually seen admit they don't truly KNOW is Frank. At least he's 100% honest about it.

At least just once admit the truth, will you? I can. I can tell you that according to the standards of man's evidence, I cannot prove God exists. And please, don't give me that "you can't prove a negative" or "you made the claim you provide evidence for it" line. Just face it. You don't know and I don't know.

Those that don't believe are more than welcome to that unbelief. It's their decision. I'm not going to label you anything for it. You are who and what you are, plain and simple. You choose what and who you are just like I do.

This is the evidence that you have attempted to divert the topic of the thread, and it is the evidence that you have attempted to redirect the thread to attempt to portray it as a discussion of whether or not your putative god exists. It is the evidence that you have brought up the topic of who can provide evidence for what. On that topic, your post #2125074 is my evidence for every charge i've levelled against you, and specifically with regard to this post of yours to which i am presently replying, that this is a clash of equal and opposing beliefs.

As for whether or not anyone can "prove" that there is or is not a god--that is not the topic of this thread. Therefore, i object to your attempt to pervert the meaning of people's posts and the topic of this thread.

Quote:

Quote:
There's nothing to buy, i have not peddled the crap you have attributed to me. Of course i know that science and faith are not commonalities--the point is to get you to recognize that and stop posting crap which asserts that: "this is just what i believe, and that is just what you believe."

See! You haven't been listening at all! I've told you this over and over and over again. I do recognize it. And, sorry, but I will post what I believe no matter why I believe it, just like you do. Equal rights and all. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste

I have included your quote of my post for clarification. Sadly, i do in fact "listen" to you, occasional. But only on the occasions on which you attempt, as you have been doing here, to warp what people have written, and to divert the course of the discussion. I don't give a rat's ass what you post, but when your posts are attempts to distort and divert, i will call you on it. To reprise the succinct remark i made on the topic of this thread:

Setanta wrote:

In case anyone who pops in to casually read doesn't understand the foregoing, i will take it upon myself to speak for the author of the thread, or at least to elucidate my understanding of this thread.

The title of the thread is not "God vs. Science." The purpose of this thread is not to disprove the existence of any putative deity.

The title of this thread is "Bible vs. Science." It is the purpose of this thread to challenge the concept of biblical literalism, to challenge the idea that all parts of the bible are inerrant truth. If that's a problem for some of the theists here, too bad, so sad.

This thread is not about whether or not science can "disprove" the existence of any putative deity. It is about whether or not there are sound scientific reasons for denying that the Bobble is entirely inerrant statements of fact.

Quote:

Quote:
If you don't do that, i will have nothing to comment upon.

This made me giggle! I didn't know I exerted that much power over you that you just can't help yourself but to respond!

You don't exert any power over me. That does not change my intention to call you for the horse poop with which you attempt to deluge this thread in the attempt to divert it from the stated topic of the thread.

Quote:

Yeah, I missed our little bantering sessions a bit too. (Cheesey emoticon removed in the interest of good taste.) But, enough entertainment for one afternoon!

You flatter yourself--there is absolutely nothing entertaining about your pathetic attempts to distort what others write, and to drive the thread off topic. Your entire rhetorical style depends upon misrepresentation and pathetic attempts at ridicule--which ridicule misses the mark by miles, because it does not refer to what people actually write, but rather to what you want to claim they've written. You end this pathetic discursus by asking what Xingu meant with this thread. That is disgustingly disingenuous. However, as there are people who will drop in casually without reading the entire thread, here is Xingu's opening post, which you could have read as well as anyone else, without asking him to repeat his intention:

xingu wrote:

I would like to see a discussion of science and the Bible.

Biblicist defend the Bible claiming it's the word of God and inerrant. The Bible's description of certain events on earth, the description of the earth and cosmos show that the authors were very ignorant of science and the structure of our universe.

Some of the things I would like to see discussed, but not held strictly to, are;

Noah's Flood: a myth much like the myths of King Arthur and Robin Hood.

The shape of the earth: the Bible says it's flat. I disagree. The world is not flat. How can anyone believe the Bible is the word of God if he can't get the shape of the world correct?

The sun standing still for 24 hours.

Quote:
Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon; and Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hastened to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded a voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel
(Joshua 10:12-14).
How is this possible? Some Biblicist, at one time, claimed that NASA found the "missing day" that proved the Bible was correct. This has subsequently been shown to be a fraud created by certain Biblicist in an effort to prove the inerrancy of the Bible.

The geocentric universe.
The are numerous passages in the Bible that picture the earth to be the immobile center of the universe. This is another very serious error telling us that God could not possibly be the author of the Bible.

If there are other issues of science vs. Bible I have not mentioned feel free to bring them up. A few things off the top of my head;

Stars
Virgin birth
Full body resurrection

Look at his first sentence again: I would like to see a discussion of science and the Bible. Nowhere in this introductory post does Xingu even remotely suggest that the purpose of this thread is to "disprove" the existence of any putative deity.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's possible, ma - that 'middle ground' thing. It just seems like it's not, because there are some people who consider it reasonable and even witty to call you other than your screen name, and call your views horse-poop, and such.

There are people (I've even had discussions with 'em, so I know they exist) on these boards who don't "buy" anything about fundie Christianity, but who don't have the need for the punkass little smears.

Speaking of horse poop--this is pungent hypocricy at its finest. You have consistently attempted to be "witty" by calling me names other than my screen name, and you have consistently characterized my point of view in terms equally as unflattering as "horse poop and such."

As for "punkass little smears," that is your stock in trade. Get a grip on reality, Snood--the topic of this thread is precisely that there are people who don't "buy" fundamentalist christian insistence on biblical literalism, and Xingu wanted to discuss that.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

If some do not believe what is written in the bible, why do they feel that it is their indisputable duty to demean those who have such beliefs? Does the name calling and purposeful infantile abuse of ones screen name make them feel superior and provide them with dubious feelings of self worth?

If one has no fear of the unknown, then why does one persist in responding with a fearful attitude? Why try to extravasate the life blood of someone with a faith?

Some find certain posters easy prey and are wont to become incorrigible when they fail to maintain any sort of authority over their intended person of faith.

In short....I agree with what Snood said.

More hypocricy just like Snood's--you too have followed me around to hurl insults at me--and now you cry crocodile tears for MOAN. The purpose of this thread is not to demean people who believe in the fairy tales of the Bobble. Apparently, you cannot distinguish disagreement from insult. That's your fault of comprehension, and your problem--not anyone else's.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
If some do not believe what is written in the bible, why do they feel that it is their indisputable duty to demean those who have such beliefs? Does the name calling and purposeful infantile abuse of ones screen name make them feel superior and provide them with dubious feelings of self worth?

If one has no fear of the unknown, then why does one persist in responding with a fearful attitude? Why try to extravasate the life blood of someone with a faith?

Some find certain posters easy prey and are wont to become incorrigible when they fail to maintain any sort of authority over their intended person of faith.

In short....I agree with what Snood said.

More hypocricy just like Snood's--you too have followed me around to hurl insults at me--and now you cry crocodile tears for MOAN. The purpose of this thread is not to demean people who believe in the fairy tales of the Bobble. Apparently, you cannot distinguish disagreement from insult. That's your fault of comprehension, and your problem--not anyone else's.

One has to wonder why anyone would want to follow Setanta around. One would also have to contemplate why Setanta feels that he is being insulted (please show the evidence), but considers it a comprehension fault in others to distinguish disagreement from insult.

You can go back to the schoolyard now, Set. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Setanta,

Uh, guess you didn't notice but we were actually talking about Noah's Ark and the claims of some that they may have recently discovered it.

Please Setanata, I'm really trying to stay on topic here. I may have gotten off for awhile but I am trying to stay on it now.

Oh and let me guess, you were wrong once? You thought you were wrong but were actually right? Laughing

C'mon, lighten up. It's just a discussion

[quote]You have consistently attempted to be "witty" by calling me names other than my screen name, and you have consistently characterized my point of view in terms equally as unflattering as "horse poop and such." [/quote].

Now THAT has to be the most hypocritical statement on this forum. But I guess you think MOAN is my screen name, right?

And Xingu, I really don't think that things like Noah's Ark will ever be found. It's not about proof. It's about faith. So, who is to say that God did not wipe away the evidence of the flood claimed in the Bible?

0 Replies

Naaah, if it happened, itd leave evidence. We even have evidence of the tiniest little bacteria from 3 billion yers ago, or evidence from crater ages , when the moon was impacted.
To make statements that are highly improbable and then to "Cover" their improbability you create yet another , higher level of improbability. You dont see anything wrong in this?
Are you even mildly educated?

Faith may move mountains but it wont tell you where to look for them, that takes your senses.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

You want evidence? You mean to tell me you don't know of a single instance where someone has tried to discredit God or try to refute that he exists?

I wasn't talking about scientists, etc. I'm talking about anyone. And, if you want evidence, I can pull plenty of it up on these forums. Check out just about any Religion & Spirituality thread and you will find plenty trying to discredit God or refute the Bible.

I asked you to point the finger at someone related to the supposed "Ark" discovery. You have not done so. Then you try to divert attention away from this fact by accusing me of saying nobody in the entire history of the world has tried to refute God exists. You are either practicing a dubious debating tactic to divert attention away from the original subject or you are showing everyone here that you are illiterate by not comprehending what "in relation" means. I suppose either method will work for someone who will ignore every path of rationality to "float their boat (ark)."

Quote:

who is to say that God did not wipe away the evidence of the flood claimed in the Bible?

God creates a flood to slowly and painfully murder practically every man, woman, child, animal, plant, etc. on Earth. Then God cleans up the crime scene by getting rid of the corpses and then wiped away the blood that is smeared on the sides of the mountains. Then God inspires men to write it down in the Bible so that people may accept through faith that he brutally murdered nearly everyone except the few who were worthy of saving. And that of those who were worthy of saving were naked drunkards (Noah), and incestual homosexuals (Ham and Canaan.) Aren't such things considered trademarks among those in insane asylums?

0 Replies

What a gentleman. Yes, I am fairly well educated.

In making that statement you limit God's power, Farmerman. Sure there is evidence for plenty of things but it's entirely possible God "destroyed" the evidence. If God had to provide proof for man of His creation, or what He did as in Noah's Ark, then the whole concept of believing by faith would be pretty much null and void.

I'm still waiting to hear more about the tests they are running on what they've found. At the very least, it seems to be interesting no matter what it is.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I'm still waiting to hear more about the tests they are running on what they've found. At the very least, it seems to be interesting no matter what it is.

You don't know what lab these samples are supposedly being sent to. You don't know that scientists that work in that lab. As such, you cannot be certain any sample was ever sent to a lab for analysis. Then again, I guess a scam could be interesting...

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Naaah, if it happened, itd leave evidence. We even have evidence of the tiniest little bacteria from 3 billion yers ago, or evidence from crater ages , when the moon was impacted.
To make statements that are highly improbable and then to "Cover" their improbability you create yet another , higher level of improbability. You dont see anything wrong in this?
Are you even mildly educated?

Faith may move mountains but it wont tell you where to look for them, that takes your senses.

I agree with FM, possibilities and probabilities are different things. You can hide behind the vanishingly small "possibility" that a cascade of quantum fluctuation may make an elephant appear in the room (or a fanciful story turn out to be true despite all evidence to the contrary), but the "probability" of something like that happening is so remote as to remove it from the realm of reality.

So let's face it, the reality is that Noah's ark never existed and never happened. It will never be found. It doesn't exist. Sure you can say "anything is possible". But you're just kidding yourself if you give it equal weight against the very high "probability" that it didn't happen.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know