Big Bang possibly confirmed

[BTGBullseye]

Hopefully that made sense... I couldn't sleep last night, or the night before... So a total of 4 hours of sleep in the last 72 hours.

Geez man, you shouldn't push that stuff too far. Unless you think you're getting closer to some truth, I don't know how

you can stay up so long and spend the time to write all of this. Doesn't slowly losing your sanity and coherency kind of hurt?

I'm not the one pushing to stay awake... I'm the one pushing to get some sleep, but my body and brain refuse to cooperate. (only my eyes agree with me about sleeping)

 

I see, this must be because of a belief that the Bible should be interpreted literally and not metaphorically...

Most of it should be read as a non-metaphorical story. Except in certain areas (which should be fairly obvious) that's what the book is.

 

Even Revelations is literal, they just didn't have the vocabulary of words for some of what was seen, like the locust that breathes fire...

 

x8RUfVZS4o8

[Vapymid]

Most of it should be read as a non-metaphorical story. Except in certain areas (which should be fairly obvious) that's what the book is.

 

OK, clear.

 

One thing that I don't understand then is why all the fuss with sciences then? I mean if the overriding supremacy of the book is accepted as absolute, wouldn't then any attempt to find corroborating evidence signify a weakness of convictions? Especially, if the methods used for finding and providing such evidence obviously don't withstand the scientific scrutiny? One just needs to say "all your facts to the contrary are illusions" and get on with their lives...

 

Regards

[Xalder]

Most of it should be read as a non-metaphorical story. Except in certain areas (which should be fairly obvious) that's what the book is.

 

Yeah, such as Genesis and a good chunk of the first testament at least up until Noah's Ark because that totally happened for sure.

 

Actually wasn't there some sort of scientific evidence of there having been a flood somewhere that might have inspired the Noah's Ark story?

 

Either way, this looks like it's turning into a theological debate so yeah. I'll get out before I go on some rant about my own logic against religion.

[BTGBullseye]

I think there's already a thread about the religion stuff, but I don't remember for sure. I'd be happy to discuss the topic with you there if you want.

 

One thing that I don't understand then is why all the fuss with sciences then? I mean if the overriding supremacy of the book is accepted as absolute, wouldn't then any attempt to find corroborating evidence signify a weakness of convictions? Especially, if the methods used for finding and providing such evidence obviously don't withstand the scientific scrutiny? One just needs to say "all your facts to the contrary are illusions" and get on with their lives...

 

Regards

Actually, back in the day, Christians were the leading scientists. (science is the study of everything, and therefore the study of God)

[Vapymid]

back in the day, Christians were the leading scientists.

 

I don't see anything that prevents a Christian from being a scientist (not that it was easy in the past - just try to convince the then Church that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe and see what happens...), however, being a literalist would seriously limit the number of scientific disciplines one can pursue, basically - scratch cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, organic chemistry off the list straight away...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I'll have to search for it, but there are actually books that are written by Catholics, and supported by the Catholic church, the genre is Sci-Fi/Fanatsy... You'd definitely be surprised at what all is in those books. (I knew someone who actually argued for an hour with me because she didn't believe that the church would even condone what was said to be the Catholic faith in the book)

[Doom Shepherd]

Well, simply, random just won't make a human

Yes, it will.

 

Besides, you would have to completely throw out the entire story of creation (which is the backbone of why you should believe in God, and follow him in the first place)

 

Horseshit. You don't have to believe the Genesis story is LITERALLY true in order to believe in God.

 

Just like you don't HAVE to believe that locusts have 4-legs instead of 6 (they have six, the Bible says 4), or that rabbits are ruminants (the Bible says they chew cud, but they don't), or that bats are birds (Leviticus says they are, but they aren't), or that the Earth was formed BEFORE the Sun (as posited in Genesis, obviously wrong)...

 

...you just have to be intelligent enough to know that the Bible is NOT a science textbook, and only a nut uses it as such.

 

Because if you go the other way around, you have to also disbelieve in the Copernican theory, because the Bible also clearly says that the sun goes around the Earth - otherwise, Joshua never could have commanded it to stand still in the sky.

 

Are you a Aristotelian Geocentrist? I hope not, because we really HAVE proven that the Heliocentric THEORY is correct.

 

just to start believing in a completely unproven theory.

 

Totally proven. You just ignore (or, charitably, possibly are just ignorant of, do your research!) all the examples, because reasons in your head.

 

(one that the guy who originally made it [Darwin] said could NOT happen on a macro scale, and wouldn't generate completely different species)

Probably didn't say exactly that, if the rest of your facts have the same source as before. But even so, you know that's the thing about science, over a few hundreds of years changes happen (they EVOLVE!) and theories get improved.

 

In the same way we now know that the uNewtonian model of physics was incomplete.

 

Also, just in case you've heard this bit of crap at your school as well, Darwin did NOT recant his writings on his deathbed, or at any other point.

[Doom Shepherd]

Most of it should be read as a non-metaphorical story. Except in certain areas (which should be fairly obvious) that's what the book is.

 

OK, clear.

 

What's clear about that? It's a total cop-out. "Oh, it's all LITERALLY true, except for the stuff that a seven-year-old could prove is wrong, or totally logically inconsistent, so that's metaphorical!" It's the same crap picking and choosing that lets jerks like Fred Phelps rationalize their crap. "Yeah, the New Testament did away with the old law, but there's still SOME (randomly chosen based on the douchery of the speaker) parts that are LAW!"

 

Pin 'em down enough, and it ALL ends up being metaphorical. That's how The God of Love, JC, gets to be a violent psychopath all through Revelations.

[ThePest179]

(even Darwin agreed that macro-evolution wasn't what originated our species)

 

Get me that quote, and the sources too.

[BTGBullseye]

I'm sorry, they've been changing what the definition of macro-evolution is again... Some claim it as changing a species from one to another, and others claim it is just changing the same species into a slightly different version of the same species after a thousand years of adaptation.

 

It's very hard to find that particular quote among a sea of arguments about the evolution/creation argument, and I really don't have the time right now to go and look.

 

Here's something that might be an interesting read though: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

[ThePest179]

I'm sorry, they've been changing what the definition of macro-evolution is again... Some claim it as changing a species from one to another, and others claim it is just changing the same species into a slightly different version of the same species after a thousand years of adaptation.

 

It's very hard to find that particular quote among a sea of arguments about the evolution/creation argument, and I really don't have the time right now to go and look.

 

Here's something that might be an interesting read though: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

 

So, you admit you made that up? And kudos to you for again ignoring Doom Shepard. Are you scared of him or something?

[BTGBullseye]

No, I just don't want to sit and argue about something that has been an argument for the top minds of the world for over a century.

 

If you want to go try and find something that both sides seem to overlook in a massive controversy, be my guest, but you'll have as much trouble as me, and I just don't have the time to go looking for it.

[ThePest179]

No, I just don't want to sit and argue about something that has been an argument for the top minds of the world for over a century.

 

If you want to go try and find something that both sides seem to overlook in a massive controversy, be my guest, but you'll have as much trouble as me, and I just don't have the time to go looking for it.

Then we are done here. You lose. Goodnight.

[BTGBullseye]

Have fun feeling superior for claiming that I lost.

[Xalder]

Well when you're ignoring the most logical and well thought-out arguments I think we are in fact done here.

 

Now you're just going to respond to this and continue to ignore Doom Shepherd because I'm not quite as consistent in my own reasoning. At least I can admit when I am wrong.

[Vapymid]

What's clear about that? It's a total cop-out.

 

That's exactly what's clear. I was not arguing with BTG, I just wanted to clarify his position. This was useful because if one side in the argument can always invoke an overriding and infallible authority to invalidate any or all of the opposing side's arguments - there is really no point in continuing the argument...

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Have fun feeling superior for claiming that I lost.

 

Well, when you just ignore a very well thought out and rational argument, then you lose.

[BTGBullseye]

The reason that I refuse to answer is because it will accomplish nothing but conflict. When people change the meaning of what I say to suit what THEY want, and don't even try to see what I really mean, there's no way to convey an idea. (it's that same problem that has caused wars and the twisting of religions to promote inquisitions/jihads/holy wars)

[ThePest179]

So you say.

[Xalder]

Change the meaning of what you say? Doom is making a very valid point about the implications of your statements. If you can't put your "true meaning" into the right words to put other people's arguments to rest, then your own argument is flawed.