The Bible Is Bullshit

[DanaC]

I think the 'commentary' exists in the title. I enjoyed the videos.

[Bullitt]

Yes they seemed random to me and I actually did watch them, I enjoy Penn & Teller and George Carlin. Thread creation in a discussion forum 101: you should do so by presenting a topic, spelling out the facts, and then give your own opinion preferable outlining your own arguments as justification, not just regurgitating someone else's thoughts with nothing to add of your own. IMO anyway, threads like this are exactly the reason rk is no longer with us, pointless threads where all he did was act as a mouthpiece to other people's thoughts that he agreed with adding little to no original thought to it, then acted as if he was actually contributing something useful with his posts.

As for the topic apparently at hand, you would be on the floor laughing if you heard some of the stuff people say at my conservative, evangelical university. I laugh and shake my head at it all sometimes. One guy tried to explain to me that the whole universe was made of water and some of it compressed and formed solid matter but not all, so when the Biblical Flood happened, that was excess water from the universe falling onto the earth.. the whole approach of creation science kills me. They start with a conclusion and then seek a hypothesis and "experimentation" to support the conclusion, which is not exactly how the scientific method works last I checked. Arguing that carbon dating is useless, etc. It's also humorous to hear some of their "facts" supporting the idea of Biblical inerrancy instead of infallibility. Thankfully it's mainly the students that go down that path, the professors and doctors in my history department are much more reasonable people, one is even staunch evolutionist which is not what you typically see when one thinks of an evangelical Christian.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

One guy tried to explain to me that the whole universe was made of water and some of it compressed and formed solid matter but not all, so when the Biblical Flood happened, that was excess water from the universe falling onto the earth..

This sounds like a poorly explained version of the Canopy Theory.

the whole approach of creation science kills me. They start with a conclusion and then seek a hypothesis and "experimentation" to support the conclusion, which is not exactly how the scientific method works last I checked.

Well, Creationists (of which I am one) ask the same question that the Evolutionists do, which is: how did all this get here?

The Evolutionists say that a point of nothingness exploded and out of this explosion came all matter and energy in the whole universe which eventually coagulated and became solar systems and planets. One of these somehow formed just the right mix of amino acids and protiens and through some literally unestimable random chance, life just happened, and then more stuff happened, and the life got more complex and then more complex until finally, there were people. Time is the hero of the story.

But they can't prove it.

The Creationists say that a being beyond our true comprehension created time, the universe and everything in it as part of a Grand Design, creating the solar system and planets and earth and water and plants and animals and people all as distinct types. God is the hero of the story.

But we can't prove that either.

Oh, both sides will come up with "evidence" to support their theories, but the result is this: We can't duplicate it. We can't observe what happened at the beginning. We can only take what we see now and the processes we see occuring now and try to extrapolate that back (which isn't accurate either, because things NEVER stay the same).

So the CvE question will remain a debate that depends on your other worldviews.

However, I will say this: If a person professes to be a Christian, then they CANNOT believe that Evolution is true, because it is 180 degrees of the Bible. As with many other things, there are times when you have to pick one side or the other. This is one issue that you can't believe in both.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

This sounds like a poorly explained version of the Canopy Theory.



Well, Creationists (of which I am one) ask the same question that the Evolutionists do, which is: how did all this get here?

The Evolutionists say that a point of nothingness exploded and out of this explosion came all matter and energy in the whole universe which eventually coagulated and became solar systems and planets.
.
.

Some evolutionists clearly take that stance, but that's not evolutionary theory.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Some evolutionists clearly take that stance, but that's not evolutionary theory.

No, the amino acids and lots of time part is.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

We can only take what we see now and the processes we see occuring now and try to extrapolate that back (which isn't accurate either, because things NEVER stay the same).

I know what you are trying to say, and agree to a point, but with the Hubble telescope and with better and better telescopes, we can see farther and farther into the distance. Since light takes time to travel, the farther into the distance we can see, the farther into the past we are looking.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

However, I will say this: If a person professes to be a Christian, then they CANNOT believe that Evolution is true, because it is 180 degrees of the Bible. As with many other things, there are times when you have to pick one side or the other. This is one issue that you can't believe in both.

According to your definition of the word "Christian." According to their definition, they might be just fine.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by glatt

I know what you are trying to say, and agree to a point, but with the Hubble telescope and with better and better telescopes, we can see farther and farther into the distance. Since light takes time to travel, the farther into the distance we can see, the farther into the past we are looking.

The speed of light is not constant. A Light year is a measure of distance based on a constant, not time.

According to your definition of the word "Christian." According to their definition, they might be just fine.

Well, I can agree with that. I would say for purposes of this discussion, that my definition of Christian is one that believes that the Bible is true and is the word of God, and that Jesus is the ultimate blood sacrifice for every person's sin. (Whereas a Jewish person doesn't necessarily follow the last part, they generally agree on the first part.)

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

life just happened, and then more stuff happened, and the life got more complex and then more complex until finally, there were people. Time is the hero of the story.

But they can't prove it

Evolution is a very well documented theory (scientific theory, not everyday use of theory) and has much evidence to back it up with. It isn't just a shot in the dark, there are reasons for theory.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

However, I will say this: If a person professes to be a Christian, then they CANNOT believe that Evolution is true, because it is 180 degrees of the Bible. As with many other things, there are times when you have to pick one side or the other. This is one issue that you can't believe in both.

The Bible is in two parts. The Old Testament is God's covenant with the Jews. The failure of that covenant led to the New Testament, God's covenant with Christians, which is ongoing. It's quite easy, and I think reasonable, to be a Christian and disregard the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by glatt

I know what you are trying to say, and agree to a point, but with the Hubble telescope and with better and better telescopes, we can see farther and farther into the distance. Since light takes time to travel, the farther into the distance we can see, the farther into the past we are looking.

I've wondered about that. The farther we can see, the more we see of the first ejecta from the "Big Bang", but when we do it'll be billions of years old. Do they think it will be unchanged it that interim? Hey, it could have grown a beard by now.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Bible is in two parts. The Old Testament is God's covenant with the Jews. The failure of that covenant led to the New Testament, God's covenant with Christians, which is ongoing. It's quite easy, and I think reasonable, to be a Christian and disregard the Old Testament.

**cuddle Bruce**

I disagree. If you take the Old Testament out of the equation, there is no need for salvation through the cross, and Jesus' sacrifice is meaningless. The Old Testament is a history of how it got to that point. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Or something like that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

**cuddle Bruce**

I disagree. If you take the Old Testament out of the equation, there is no need for salvation through the cross, and Jesus' sacrifice is meaningless. The Old Testament is a history of how it got to that point. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Or something like that.

The Old Testament is a history of how it got to that point, but Jesus' sacrifice canceled the Old Testament. Jesus said forget that eye for an eye shit, and forget the ten commandments, now there is one commandment, love thy neighbor as thy self. New covenant, new deal, new rules, making the Old Testament simply a Jewish history book.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Evolution is a very well documented theory (scientific theory, not everyday use of theory) and has much evidence to back it up with. It isn't just a shot in the dark, there are reasons for theory.

I disagree, and there are alot of reasons (scientific ones), but I don't have the time or energy to go into it (again).

The bottom line is, there is nothing that proves it per the scientific method, and therefore it can't be proven. Just like Creationism.

[dar512]

I am one of those who believe in evolution, God, and Jesus.

The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books covering a long time period. I don't have any problem with some of the older stuff being less reliable. Not only is it older, but it has been edited and modified (sometimes more than once). I also don't have problems with the "inconsistencies" people point out in the bible -- Mrs. dar and I often have different recollections of things that occurred just a couple of years ago.

I find the Bible more useful and more meaningful, not less, for knowing that it is not a literal history.

BTW, when I went back to get my CS degree, I went to Seattle Pacific U. -- a Methodist college. You were required to take a bible course to graduate. I took the old testament course. And "useful for instruction" but "not a literal history" is how they teach it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I disagree, and there are alot of reasons (scientific ones), but I don't have the time or energy to go into it (again).

The bottom line is, there is nothing that proves it per the scientific method, and therefore it can't be proven. Just like Creationism.

The scientific method disproves challenges. Evolution is one of the most challenged theories, and it has withstood all challenges. It is science.

Creationism is an assertion that makes no testable predictions, and therefore cannot be challenged. Particular stories from the Bible can be disproven, such as Noah's Ark, but when there is magic involved a believer can always invoke it. It is not science.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The bottom line is, there is nothing that proves it per the scientific method, and therefore it can't be proven. Just like Creationism.

But there is a big difference. Creationism, at least the version in The Bible, has massive amounts of evidence that proves it wrong. None exist with creationism.

Also....

Evolution can be proven wrong. God cannot.