Wyz_sub10

Just because one doesn't accept something as fact does not mean one doesn't understand it.

If I ask you to accept me as the greatest mind that ever existed, you would probably say 'don't think so'. By your logic, I could simply claim that you don't really understand what I'm saying. If you did, then you'd be on board.

Because they aren't. Almost all of the Pentatuch is demonstratively false. The timeline is completely inaccurate in much of the 'history' books, and there is scant evidence for anything that happened in the New Testament.

There was no mass exodus.
There was no global flood.
There was no conquest of Canaan.
Period.

These things simply did not happen. They are stories with no archaeological support, no literary support (beyond a bible written centuries after the fact), and no cross-cultural references.

Missing pieces of science? If it's not in the bible, then from what source are you drawing your conclusions?

I hope that if your family ever needs medical treatment, you'll allow them to benefit from modern medicine. (and not try to drive the "demon sprits" into a heard of pigs)

...or Zeus or Ra or The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

If we try really hard, we can "bring together" the weather and what I had for breakfast. That does not mean the connection is a valid one.

See, now if he had just said that in the bible in the first place, maybe it'd be more believable.

But he didn't.

As it stands, it's simply a case of you trying to reconcile the gaps in your mythology with modern discoveries. People do it with evolution, the big bang, and anything else that challenges their mythos.

No one complains about, say, the discovery of blood types, because that does not present a direct challenge to their beliefs. Same goes for atomic weights of elements or the charge of particles or whatever.

There are probably 4 or 5 scientific discoveries that *really* pose challenges to Christianity. Something tells me you think all of these "lack evidence".

At the end of the day, you may want to save yourself the headache and just avoid science altogether.

Jesse

Magus55:
If that point contained infinite mass yet no space, how long has it been there? What made it explode when it did? Did the singularity just appear there randomly?

No one knows if there even was a singularity. All the stuff in the first 10^-43 seconds is totally speculative because we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet. Do you agree that there is a lot of evidence that the theory of what happened after that time, the expansion of the universe from a very dense state (but not infinitely dense, necessarily), is correct? If so, then you believe in the "Big Bang theory" as it's understood by most physicists.

Did you read my earlier posts? Are you just ignoring them because they're inconvenient for your argument about the "faith" of physicists?

Paul2

Oh yeah, i forgot to mention that if i recall correctly, the singularity is just a mathematical construct. I should probably refresh my memory sometime. It's to early for that though.

DMB

Magus: I doubt very much that you are in any way qualified to dismiss any theories in Physics. I know that I'm not, although I do have a degree in Mathematics, which helps a bit. I feel that since I am not a physicist, it behoves me to be a bit humble and let the physicists get on with their theories.

It is clear to me from what you have posted that although you may have read Hawking's A Brief History of Time, it managed to pass through your eyes without touching much of your brain. I really do think that you should find out a lot more about the Big Bang before dismissing it so cavalierly.

As I posted before, there is little symmetry between science and religion. The one requires a grounding in specialist knowledge and skills. The other usually claims to be accessible to everyone. Certainly, if we are going to be damned for not accepting some religious doctrine, it ought to be accessible. No-one is going to fling you into hell for not understanding or accepting physics. You may just show yourself up a bit, however.

Magus55

Nope, its not a contradiction. In Gen 1, God is giving the day by day account of creation. Gen 2 he summarized Gen 1 and concentrated on Day 6, where he created Adam and Eve - since humans are the ultimate purpose of his creation.

Autonemesis

To whom was He giving it? Who was writing this stuff down at that point in history, before any people were created? Before there was any paper, or stone tablets, or gold plates to write upon?

If Gen 2 is just a summary of day 6, then the animals must have been created on day 6 according to Gen 2. But this contradicts Gen 1, which says the animals were created on day 5. And I haven't even touched upon the contradictions in the order of creation. Gen 1 says the animals were created on day 5, and man on day 6. But Gen 2 says that man was already existing then God decided to create the animals and bring them to Adam to be named. These two versions of the story cannot bth be true.

Furthermore, Genesis 1 contradicts itself.

Verses 3-5:
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Verses 14-18:
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

So even Genesis 1 can't tell a consistent story. Did God divide the light from the darkness on the first day, or did He divide it on the 4th day? Who can tell in this jumbled, confused mess? No one can. It is plainly contradictory. Furthermore, there is no way to modify the Bible to resolve the contradiction.

Science, on the other hand, is ready to modify its core assumptions about the nature of reality and the meaning of the theories it entertains, as soon as the evidence warrants such a change. This is why it is a superior guide to understanding the nature of reality: it can admit mistakes and correct them.

Believers in the Biblical creation story cannot - strike that - will not do that.

Magus55

He created Light on the first day. But it didn't come from physical sources, it came from him - God said Let there be light - and light exists, no sun or moon was made yet.

On day 4, God created the stars, the sun and the moon. Hence what the reference to them being signs and seasons, days and years are.

1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

1:15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The two great lights are the sun and the moon which gave the permanent light on the earth.


There is no contradiction - God created non-physical light in the first few verses and verse 14-16 is him making the Sun, moon, and stars to physically show day and night.

Makes perfect sense to me, don't see why you are having such a difficult time.

MyKell

and when does he make the time machine to get you back to the eighteenth century? What day would that be?

Magus55

The insults aren't necessary. If you can't discuss the conversation then don't reply.

eh

What is non physical light? Magic?