Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the Bible contradict Science?

1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution. One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

Christianity does not contradict science.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 8:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution. One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

Christianity does not contradict science.

The Fool: I thinks its far to say you are really stretching the interpretation out on that one. Just a little. I don't think evolution has been the only one.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?

Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:58:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution. One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

Christianity does not contradict science.

When this story was written, the earth did exist, and I can make a reasonable assertion, the word day to the writer meant, nearly, that which it means today.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:04:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?


Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There were quite a few who, thousands and hundreds of years ago (before evolution came onto the scene), didn't take genesis literally. Some of them were church fathers and prominent theologian (see: Augustine, Philo, Origen, Wesley, Aquinas, etc)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:09:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:04:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?


Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There were quite a few who, thousands and hundreds of years ago (before evolution came onto the scene), didn't take genesis literally. Some of them were church fathers and prominent theologian (see: Augustine, Philo, Origen, Wesley, Aquinas, etc)

Okay. I concede that. So I'll rephrase: not every single theist. The vast, vast, vast majority of theists. What about my point that theists (in general) hold a certain position, something modern comes along and rejects it, and they subjectively label it a metaphor? This happens in regards to things scientific, historical, and moral.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:20:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:09:30 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 4/11/2012 10:04:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?


Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There were quite a few who, thousands and hundreds of years ago (before evolution came onto the scene), didn't take genesis literally. Some of them were church fathers and prominent theologian (see: Augustine, Philo, Origen, Wesley, Aquinas, etc)

Okay. I concede that. So I'll rephrase: not every single theist. The vast, vast, vast majority of theists. What about my point that theists (in general) hold a certain position, something modern comes along and rejects it, and they subjectively label it a metaphor? This happens in regards to things scientific, historical, and moral.

Also the literalist approach was the basic church view, was it not? And I still don't understand why God wouldn't just clarify things and teach evolution in the bible, if evolution is true and compatible with the bible. Why not clear up the ignorance? Why create so much of the ignorance? Indeed, we see today over a hundred and fifty years after Darwin that a ridiculous amount of people still believe in a literal reading of the bible. The controversy still rages. Again, this is over a hundred and fifty years after Darwin. If the bible and evolution are so compatible I do not understand why this is so...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:46:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There were quite a few who, thousands and hundreds of years ago (before evolution came onto the scene), didn't take genesis literally. Some of them were church fathers and prominent theologian (see: Augustine, Philo, Origen, Wesley, Aquinas, etc)

The Fool: they didnt take it literally because they reliesed It makes absolutly no sense to be taken word for word. Its its not word for word, then you have to presume God is a pracically joker. Who doesnt tell say what he means. This puts makes the Hole bible completly unreliable. Because no one can speak for God. And assertion to accept something and not the rest, is special pleading.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:41:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Disclaimer: I am undecided on evolution.

At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that?

Why does the Bible have to teach science? The Bible tells us little on how the earth was created, why should it mention evolution? You claim it's hilarious. I find that quite ungrounded.

Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages?

Because there was nothing to suggest otherwise.

Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?

Because science is ever changing.

Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient,

That's right THEY were human.

and did not know the real origins of the world.

No human has gained that knowledge.

When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!)

I am surprised an atheist would take this form of argument. How on earth is it relevant that for centuries theists shared a view which is now not as common? Guess what? For most of human existence very few people believed in atheism. Really I'm surprised you find that even relevant.

it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

Unsupported

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Verses are always nice.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Or we don't believe in Bible inerrency...

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did.

Why do you think that?

Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical.

Not sure who you mean? Are you talking about the Catholic persecution of protestants?

Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

You mean none of the 40(I think) authors of the Bible? Well maybe(verses are helpful). But you're assuming our hypothetical theist believes in Bible inerrancy.


The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years

Because they didn't really have any cause to contemplate whether it wasn't literal, and because hundreds of years ago people took Christianity for granted. Allot of people, like common society, did not use allot of intellectual thinking, and intellectual opponents of Christianity were few.

and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution

Anyone would have scoffed at evolution before the progression of science.

(the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely).

Perhaps the authoritarian extreme hierarchy catholics.

And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?

The OP used logic to deduce his argument, did he not?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:46:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. But according to the Bible's genealogies, the Earth is no more than about 10,000 years old and we are all descended from Adam and Eve. Those two beliefs are very incompatible with our current understanding of evolution.

One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

One day (a full rotation of the Earth) would have never elapsed without the Earth.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:31:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution. One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

Christianity does not contradict science.

Wait. According to Genesis, God made the earth on the first day. If you remember in Genesis 1:1, God was hovering over the waters, and this was before he created the light.

But even if that werent true, God creates the vegetation in one day, which clearly contradicts science. And so does the fact that he creates Adam from mud and Eve from adams bones.

Furthermore, youre throwing out every single miracle that ever happened in the bible, because miracles are a violation of natural laws and therefore necessarily contradicts science.

So i think its safe to say your claim is false.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:46:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:31:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
Wait. According to Genesis, God made the earth on the first day. If you remember in Genesis 1:1, God was hovering over the waters, and this was before he created the light.
And? Where's the contradiction?

But even if that werent true, God creates the vegetation in one day, which clearly contradicts science.
How so?

And so does the fact that he creates Adam from mud and Eve from adams bones.
You saying that one could not rearrange the subatomic particles in mud to a person? God could have turned the mud into energy and the energy into a person. Like a transporter beam on Star Trek. For starters...

Furthermore, youre throwing out every single miracle that ever happened in the bible, because miracles are a violation of natural laws and therefore necessarily contradicts science.
Are they? Perhaps miracles are simply actions that escaped the understanding of the people at the time (or even now)? They could also be actions performed by a non-physical Entity.

So i think its safe to say your claim is false.
Guess again.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:46:43 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:31:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
Wait. According to Genesis, God made the earth on the first day. If you remember in Genesis 1:1, God was hovering over the waters, and this was before he created the light.
And? Where's the contradiction?
The waters on the earth existed, which means that the earth existed.
But even if that werent true, God creates the vegetation in one day, which clearly contradicts science.
How so?
Uh, youre serious? Vegetation evolving into the diversity we see today in one day contradicts evolution and science.
And so does the fact that he creates Adam from mud and Eve from adams bones.
You saying that one could not rearrange the subatomic particles in mud to a person? God could have turned the mud into energy and the energy into a person. Like a transporter beam on Star Trek. For starters...

Again, this is against the theory of evolution. Remember the original post, 1dustpelt claimed that the bible does not contradict evolution.

Furthermore, youre throwing out every single miracle that ever happened in the bible, because miracles are a violation of natural laws and therefore necessarily contradicts science.
Are they? Perhaps miracles are simply actions that escaped the understanding of the people at the time (or even now)? They could also be actions performed by a non-physical Entity.

We are talking about this from a science point of view. The only thing that is acceptable in science, are things that are actually demonstrable and have consistent evidence. The fact that miracles might be explained, is no different than the fact that evolution might be wrong. Just because something might be, doesnt mean it is acceptable in science.

So i think its safe to say your claim is false.
Guess again.

Right back at you.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 2:01:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not because they rejected evolution. It's because they weren't aware of it, thus wrong interpretations of scriptures took place. Many theists came up with the idea of evolution far before Darwin (and this includes Muslims). Darwin mostly introduced natural selection.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 2:01:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:03:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
The waters on the earth existed, which means that the earth existed.
Could you be MORE specific and state the contradiction clearly.

Uh, youre serious? Vegetation evolving into the diversity we see today in one day contradicts evolution and science.
How do you know what a day was back then? it could be millions of years by today's standards.

Again, this is against the theory of evolution. Remember the original post, 1dustpelt claimed that the bible does not contradict evolution.
Touché...so to that I say: it's a metaphor!

We are talking about this from a science point of view. The only thing that is acceptable in science, are things that are actually demonstrable and have consistent evidence. The fact that miracles might be explained, is no different than the fact that evolution might be wrong. Just because something might be, doesnt mean it is acceptable in science.
That's incorrect; there are MANY things in science that are "MIGHT BE": dark energy/matter; String Theory; etc. I'm simply saying that miracles could simply be explainable phenomena.

Right back at you.
Ditto.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 4:23:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 2:01:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:03:24 PM, tkubok wrote:
The waters on the earth existed, which means that the earth existed.
Could you be MORE specific and state the contradiction clearly.

If the earth exists, it has a rotation, if it has a rotation, it has a day, if it has a day, then it could not be billions of years old.

Uh, youre serious? Vegetation evolving into the diversity we see today in one day contradicts evolution and science.
How do you know what a day was back then? it could be millions of years by today's standards.

Again, the earths rotation spinning so slowly that a day constitutes a billion years is contrary to science.

Furhermore, the earth spinning so slowly would mean that half the planet was in perpetual darkness while the other half was in perpetual light.

Again, this is against the theory of evolution. Remember the original post, 1dustpelt claimed that the bible does not contradict evolution.
Touché...so to that I say: it's a metaphor!

Sure. If you want to consider the entire front half, and every single miracle ever in the bible as a metaphor, im fine with that.

The question is, are you fine with that?

We are talking about this from a science point of view. The only thing that is acceptable in science, are things that are actually demonstrable and have consistent evidence. The fact that miracles might be explained, is no different than the fact that evolution might be wrong. Just because something might be, doesnt mean it is acceptable in science.
That's incorrect; there are MANY things in science that are "MIGHT BE": dark energy/matter; String Theory; etc. I'm simply saying that miracles could simply be explainable phenomena.

First off, string theory and the likes are more mathematical models than physical, and currently exists only in mathematics. Dark energy and matter are not void of evidence, and this evidence is consistent. Again, just because something might be, doesnt mean it is acceptable in science. Both String theory and Dark matter have their evidences that demonstrate their existance is likely, which is what makes them the most prevalent and valid theories.

Miracles, do not.

Right back at you.
Ditto.

Ditto again.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 4:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 4:23:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
If the earth exists, it has a rotation...
Not necessarily.

...if it has a rotation, it has a day
Not necessarily.

...if it has a day, then it could not be billions of years old.
See above.

Again, the earths rotation spinning so slowly that a day constitutes a billion years is contrary to science.
I wasn't saying that per se. Are you implying that the earth has always rotated at the same speed? My point is that a day NOT defined by the rotation of the earth is possible.

Furhermore, the earth spinning so slowly would mean that half the planet was in perpetual darkness while the other half was in perpetual light.
See above.

Touché...so to that I say: it's a metaphor!
Sure. If you want to consider the entire front half, and every single miracle ever in the bible as a metaphor, im fine with that.
No thanks. I will pick and choose which ones are based upon the Churches' interpretation.

The question is, are you fine with that?
Yep. I have no problem with the God of the Gaps!

First off, string theory and the likes are more mathematical models than physical, and currently exists only in mathematics.
Ergo more maybe than definite.

Dark energy and matter are not void of evidence, and this evidence is consistent.
There's more support for string theory than dark anything.

Again, just because something might be, doesnt mean it is acceptable in science. Both String theory and Dark matter have their evidences that demonstrate their existance is likely, which is what makes them the most prevalent and valid theories.
Uh no. String theory has ZERO evidence.

Miracles, do not.
Any magic trick disproves that...till you learn the trick of course.

Ditto again.
Here we go!

Are you one of those militant atheists, btw?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:19:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 4:36:06 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/12/2012 4:23:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
If the earth exists, it has a rotation...
Not necessarily.
This will apply to all your "Not necessarily".

Yes, if we violate the laws of physics and if we contradict everythign we know about the universe and cosmology then you are right, this would not necessarily be true.

But that would be counter against science. Thus my point would be proven.
...if it has a rotation, it has a day
Not necessarily.

...if it has a day, then it could not be billions of years old.
See above.

Again, the earths rotation spinning so slowly that a day constitutes a billion years is contrary to science.
I wasn't saying that per se. Are you implying that the earth has always rotated at the same speed? My point is that a day NOT defined by the rotation of the earth is possible.

I am saying that the earth could not have sped up to the point that a single rotation that took billions of years, suddenly became 24-hour intervals.

Furthermore, no. Genesis clearly talks about the evening and the morning, which means that it is talking abotu a rotational day on earth.

Furhermore, the earth spinning so slowly would mean that half the planet was in perpetual darkness while the other half was in perpetual light.
See above.

Touché...so to that I say: it's a metaphor!
Sure. If you want to consider the entire front half, and every single miracle ever in the bible as a metaphor, im fine with that.
No thanks. I will pick and choose which ones are based upon the Churches' interpretation.
Oh, so youre cherry-picking what you consider to be metaphor and what is literal, therefore making it irrelevant if the bible contradicts science or not, and making you a hypocrite. Thanks for being honest.
The question is, are you fine with that?
Yep. I have no problem with the God of the Gaps!
See above.
First off, string theory and the likes are more mathematical models than physical, and currently exists only in mathematics.
Ergo more maybe than definite.

No, they are supported by mathematics, and not science, ergo wrong field.

Dark energy and matter are not void of evidence, and this evidence is consistent.
There's more support for string theory than dark anything.

Okay.

Again, just because something might be, doesnt mean it is acceptable in science. Both String theory and Dark matter have their evidences that demonstrate their existance is likely, which is what makes them the most prevalent and valid theories.
Uh no. String theory has ZERO evidence.
It is based in mathematics, currently. It is a mathematical model.

That isnt to say that someday it will become science. This is what happened with General relativity. However, the evidence, the support, is mathematical.
Miracles, do not.
Any magic trick disproves that...till you learn the trick of course.

Sure. But magic tricks dont violate the natural laws of physics. They fool the perception, but not the laws of physics.

Ditto again.
Here we go!

Are you one of those militant atheists, btw?

Nope. I dont go around bombing churches and firing my AK-47 into crowds of masses on sunday morning.

Oh, wait, youre talking about militant atheism, as in someone who is simply outspoken?

Well, in that case, i suppose i would be.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:42:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?

Science is the same way. It is constantly changing and being modified. Look at the leap between Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics to Darwin's theory of evolution. I mean, science is not taught to us once correctly and then we're done with it, so how come you expect religion to be the same?


Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 6:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution. One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

Christianity does not contradict science.

I'm not particularly in the mood to type a long response, so I apologise. However the evolution that you are thinking of is called macro evolution (perhaps more accurately said, revolution), it isn't a science, since can't bet tested, it can't be observed, it can't be predicted. It is a belief, based off of the past. But still, your right, Christianity does not contradict science.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:09:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:09:30 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 4/11/2012 10:04:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?


Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There were quite a few who, thousands and hundreds of years ago (before evolution came onto the scene), didn't take genesis literally. Some of them were church fathers and prominent theologian (see: Augustine, Philo, Origen, Wesley, Aquinas, etc)

Okay. I concede that. So I'll rephrase: not every single theist. The vast, vast, vast majority of theists. What about my point that theists (in general) hold a certain position, something modern comes along and rejects it, and they subjectively label it a metaphor? This happens in regards to things scientific, historical, and moral.

Sure, as you describe it, I don't think that's a very principled position. There should be good reasons to take something as metaphor or allegory or whatever.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 4:36:06 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I have no problem with the God of the Gaps!:

Then you obviously didn't care about logic or reason from the start, keep trollin'.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:20:49 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 4/11/2012 10:09:30 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 4/11/2012 10:04:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?


Maybe because whoever wrote the Bible was not omniscient, and did not know the real origins of the world. When you can label anything in the bible "metaphorical" (days don't really mean days even though every theists for centuries and centuries had no problem believing it did!) it becomes impossible to disprove. Basically, if I disprove any part of the bible - based on scientific contradictions, historical contradictions, moral contradictions - theists will just label it a metaphor and thus save it from being rejected.

This is basically how the process works:

Atheist/agnostic: It's wrong to kill homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children publicly and in gruesomely elaborate ways, as the Bible demands.

Theist: Well, we don't take those verses literally.

Atheist/agnostic: But until the last few hundred years, every single theist did. Countless of those people I mentioned were tortured and murdered in the most awful ways precisely on the basis of those verses that you so casually deem metaphorical. Clearly whoever wrote the bible did not intend them to be interpreted as metaphors.

The Bible is a book full of awful moral instructions and some good ones. The good ones like "love thy neighbor" all theists will shout from the mountain tops. Those are all to be taken literally. But the ones that even theists have to admit are awful moral instructions, are just repackaged as "metaphors" which basically means the Bible can mean whatever theists want it to mean.

It's the same with evolution. Theists had no problem interpreting the creation story literally for thousands of years and would have scoffed at the proposition of evolution (the powers that be would have killed anyone who suggested it publicly, more likely). And once you take one story as metaphorical, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't? Doesn't that become purely subjective?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There were quite a few who, thousands and hundreds of years ago (before evolution came onto the scene), didn't take genesis literally. Some of them were church fathers and prominent theologian (see: Augustine, Philo, Origen, Wesley, Aquinas, etc)

Okay. I concede that. So I'll rephrase: not every single theist. The vast, vast, vast majority of theists. What about my point that theists (in general) hold a certain position, something modern comes along and rejects it, and they subjectively label it a metaphor? This happens in regards to things scientific, historical, and moral.

Also the literalist approach was the basic church view, was it not?

I don't know. Probably.

And I still don't understand why God wouldn't just clarify things and teach evolution in the bible, if evolution is true and compatible with the bible. Why not clear up the ignorance? Why create so much of the ignorance?

Why do you assume that God's purpose with inspiring the bible would be to teach correct science? That would be entirely missing the point.

Indeed, we see today over a hundred and fifty years after Darwin that a ridiculous amount of people still believe in a literal reading of the bible. The controversy still rages.

Indeed, I think it's a bit silly, really.

Again, this is over a hundred and fifty years after Darwin. If the bible and evolution are so compatible I do not understand why this is so...

I think you (and a lot of biblical literalists) are working from within a framework of scientific concordism wherein you assume that certain biblical stories should be align with scientific discoveries when properly understood. I don't see why one should think this in the first place. If you assumed that God would want to give us correct science, then I could see good reason to accept this paradigm. Otherwise? Not so much. Genesis is speaking about entirely different things - things that science isn't really concerned with.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:30:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: pop. There is not justification to take anything as metphores. Because there is no way to tell which one is and which on isn't.

Well I should say can you give one,? And why should you be able to do one over the rest. ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:27:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Oh, and by "scientific concordism", I mean this:

http://hope-for-pandora.blogspot.com...

The Fool: 60 years ago the bible would have nothing to do with it. They still don't. they were only in agreement with THe big bang, because they thought it refered to actual begining of existence. They were the one who prevents 1600 years or scientic progress there is no way.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:36:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:30:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: pop. There is not justification to take anything as metphores. Because there is no way to tell which one is and which on isn't.

Well I should say can you give one,? And why should you be able to do one over the rest. ?

That's like saying there's no way to tell whether I'm using a figure of speech when I say "it's raining cats and dogs right now". And then that's like further saying since you can't tell whether I'm using a figure you speech that gives you license to interpret anything I say as non-literal. Literary genre and social context is key, isn't it?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:58:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:32:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:27:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Oh, and by "scientific concordism", I mean this:

http://hope-for-pandora.blogspot.com...

The Fool: 60 years ago the bible would have nothing to do with it. They still don't. they were only in agreement with THe big bang, because they thought it refered to actual begining of existence. They were the one who prevents 1600 years or scientic progress there is no way.

What are you talking about? And you have your historical facts wrong. The "conflict thesis" has been discredited for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And a lot of religious folk (Christian, Jews, and Muslims) were responsible for scientific progress. For a focus specifically on Christians, see:

http://www.amazon.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:59:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:24:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
The Bible does not Contradict Evolution. When God created the animals, he could have used evolution. One day to create the universe, well at that time Earth did not exist, therefore our day(A full rotation of the Earth) would not exist, therefore one day could be anything.

Christianity does not contradict science.

Word.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 8:06:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:42:27 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 4/11/2012 9:11:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
I think it's hilarious how theists today have no problem accepting that their creation stories and evolution are compatible, but for thousands of years no theist would have even suggested that. If evolution and the bible are compatible, why wasn't it just taught like that? Why did all theists believe otherwise for ages? Why wait for Darwin to come along and prove the popular theistic conception of the origins of life incorrect?

Science is the same way. It is constantly changing and being modified. Look at the leap between Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics to Darwin's theory of evolution. I mean, science is not taught to us once correctly and then we're done with it, so how come you expect religion to be the same?

Um, holy books are supposed to be the perfect word of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal deity, so excuse me for holding it to higher standards than science which is openly admitted to be the work of fallible humans...