RufusAtticus

That's your opinion. I bet the ancient Finns found Genesis quite silly. I still don't understand why modern day Christian's hold so stongly to bronze-age Jewish mythology.

~~RvFvS~~

Mageth

If you permit omnpotence/magick, Douglas, all creation stories are equally believable (and thus equally "silly.") If you discount magick, all are equally silly. If god chose to create the world from a goose's egg (which, being omnipotent, is surely within his power), and that account was written in the bible, would you consider it silly?

foursquareman

firstly, its my belief they were recorded correctly.

secondly, why couldn't God create that light for us to enjoy the light of the stars?

Lastly, I don't ask you to believe me, just that you accept my belief in it.

hezekiah jones

Why couldn't "God" have initiated the Big Bang and let the universe and all the life in it evolve based on physical principles?

scigirl

But foursquareman,

We have proven YEC wrong! Read anything at talkorigins. Yes there are some problems here and there with evolutionary theory. But there is absolutely no dispute among the scientific community that the earth is very old, and that some sort of descent with modification occurred.

Do you really think that the chapter of Genesis was written (even if inspired by God) to be a science text? Why? Why doesn't it mention viruses, or DNA, or quantum physics? If it is such an amazing scientific document, where's E = mc^2? Where's the amazing predictions or explanations? Why does it say the earth is flat or that the sun goes around the earth?

It doesn't make any sense. Tell you what - explain to me why you don't believe the above egg story (and all the other religious "god-inspired" stories), and you will understand why I don't believe yours.

scigirl

RufusAtticus

What do you think about radiometric dating techniques that show that the earth is much older than Biblical Genologies would seem to indicate? Before you answer, maybe you should read the following essay.

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science" target="_blank">Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective</a>

~~RvFvS~~

foursquareman

I'm sure he could have. But the bible says he didn't. Don't feel insulted.

RufusAtticus

The Bible doesn't mention atoms but they exist. The evidence points to an expanding and ancient universe. Is there something playing tricks on us?

~~RvFvS~~

hezekiah jones

Well?

Where does the Bible say he didn't? Does the Bible say, "God didn't create the universe several billion years ago"? I don't think it does. Does the Bible say, "God created the universe in 4004 B.C.? I don't think it does.

Most Christians (or any other brand of believer, for that matter) have absolutely no problem reconciling their faith with both the Bible and the observations made by scientists. Why is it such a problem for the minority fundamentalist contingent?

I'm not insulted. Why would I be insulted?

lpetrich

I would like to thank you, Mr. Foursquareman, for not being a jerk, unlike certain others whom I shall not name.

However, I believe absolute Biblical literalism to be unsupportable. Consider obviously metaphorical parts like "you are the salt of the Earth" -- are you a pillar of salt? And consider parts like Jesus Christ getting to see "all the kingdoms of the world", or Leviticus having a long list of birds that includes the bat, or Joshua telling the Sun to stop moving so he could win one of his battles.

You may want to consider Galileo's view that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go -- the Church had a more literalist view of the Bible, which is why the Church had made him recant.