Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 3:04:18 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
if genesis is a literal 7 day account of creation, with man being made on the 6th day, then the genealogy starts with adam, and the age of man is identical to the age of the earth.

and sorry...

quote:

If they hold to a young earth position then they are not very scholarly or reputable to me.


if you've not studied them, and the issue extensively, and given the way youre framing your statements, I can see that you haven't, its a stupid thing to say.

if youre genuinely curious, or let me rephrase, if you genuinely care about the truth, spend a handful of hours reading their material, and by all means, since they lack scholarliness, you shouldn't have any problems find gaping holes in all of their work and going along your merry way as an "old earther."



(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 3:05:15 PM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The problem I encounter with the "The bible is the absolute truth" crowd is that if it is not written in the bible, then it not the truth.
...
Again sheer nonsense, the Bible was written to provide us with "truth" about some very specific things and not to provide us with the truth about "everything" and so there is a lot truth out there that is not in the Bible.

Right, like the Universe is 6000 years old, yep.
See it's things like this that people try to get away with. Okay, show me where the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old.

It doesn't. However Archbishop Ussher is very emphatic that he got his date of 4004 BC for the world's creation from a careful study of Genesis, and spends most of his Anales Veteris blathering about how the King James version clearly supports his argument. Presumably he didn't want anybody thinking that his thesis had been influenced by any of the talmudic scholars who were convinced that the first chapter of Genesis takes place at least a thousand years earlier.

The problem is people read this nut case's opinion and think he studies the Bible so the Bible must say stupid things like the Universe is only 6000 years old but as you say it just doesn't.

He was the archbishop of Dublin and was praised for his scholarship and knowledge of the Bible after he published his book on creation. His argument has been adopted as the young Earther's baseline ever since, so dismissing him as a lone nutcase who has nothing to do with the mainstream of christian thought is outright deceitful. Our Lord and saviour and Mose's tablets from God both had took a dim view of bearing false witness like that.

And here I thought you had given up being Frogy but here you come jumping back.

I did not dismiss him as a lone nutcase, I dismissed him as one of a number nutcases that have mislead the "mainstream of christian thought" straight into the ditch.

As for this "Young Earth" nonsense, any adult with half a brain can see that the Earth and the Universe are at least millions of years old for any number of reasons.

Whereas I can understand that God has the ability to have created the Earth only 6000 years ago and just make it look like it was millions of years old but it would mean that God has committed a fraud on us and I don't believe that to be in the nature of God's personality.

Backtracking again as soon as you're called on something? What a surprise.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 3:17:50 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I don't make any judgments or denigrate people about their beliefs. I do not denigrate believers in any way let alone the shit I get from 'believers.'
...
I got an idea, let's go to the video:
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I have every right. Commenting on books that are nothing more than stone age fairy tales...why not ? Everybody who comments on such mythology, has the right.

There is as much or more historical evidence even more so highly suggesting, that the bible (new testament, whatever that is) is mythology written by the Romans who for their political purposes, created a likewise mythical character called Jesus, whole cloth...out of thin air.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
It's not to ridicule at all. First, commenting on the bible is no different than commenting on Grimm's fairy tales.

I 'generally seek' reason, evidence while the so-called 'faithful' almost always denigrate non-believers as some how defective and less than a 'normal' 'god fearing' [sic] people. Why ?

To be flat out honest about such denigration, it is a sorry commentary on the human intellectual condition that has anyone seek solace or righteousness from a book and an imaginary story.

That's especially more true everyday when 'Christians' every day pay no homage to the bible at all. Oh but that's ok...go about your sinning because as long as you repent, you're...off the hook, in the clear.

Hell, even after John-the-Baptist sold it, the Medici's again gave the world retail absolution, just buck-up heathen...even for the already dead. Isn't that precious ?

It's amazing what can be done to such a cult of credulity.
Yep, no judgments or denigration here and while you're at it don't look behind the curtain either.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 3:51:16 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

if genesis is a literal 7 day account of creation, with man being made on the 6th day, then the genealogy starts with adam, and the age of man is identical to the age of the earth.

and sorry...

quote:

If they hold to a young earth position then they are not very scholarly or reputable to me.


if you've not studied them, and the issue extensively, and given the way youre framing your statements, I can see that you haven't, its a stupid thing to say.

if youre genuinely curious, or let me rephrase, if you genuinely care about the truth, spend a handful of hours reading their material, and by all means, since they lack scholarliness, you shouldn't have any problems find gaping holes in all of their work and going along your merry way as an "old earther."

Pardon me, I'm having a little trouble with your math. If as you say man was created on the 6th day and genealogy starts with Adam then how can the
age of man be identical to the age of the earth? Even according to what you say wouldn't the Earth's age be the age of man plus 5 days?

I have studied the issue extensively but one does not need to study Ptolemy extensively to know that the earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around and likewise, once you know that the Earth is millions of years old what would be the point of studying the works of people who believe it is only 6000 years old in any real depth?

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 3:55:44 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Backtracking again as soon as you're called on something? What a surprise.
There you go, the old frogy is back and still can't undertand that when he misunderstands what has been said and someone tries to help him out he shouldn't try to insult them as thanks for the help.

Also I couldn't help but notice your insult really wasn't any kind of a real response to what was said to you.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 4:03:08 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
um, over thousands of years, a difference of 5 days is inconsequential. when people talk about the age of the earth and how many years mankind has been around, they don't differentiate one from the other by adding or subtracting five days. seriously??

although your illustration is not really suitable, I get your point, except for in this instance, I trust you don't strongly reside in it.

you don't "know" the earth is millions of years old. dating methods are built on assumptions that may or may not be true. and unless you can not only articulate all those assumptions, and more importantly, deal effectively with all the criticisms of those assumptions AND have faithfully examined the evidence to the contrary, then your "faith" in what you believe is a shallow and incomplete one.

its pretty clear from your last question, that you have not done that.

feel free to continue to believe what you want, but short of rising to the essential challenge stated above, please don't pretend as if its the truth.




(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 4:53:25 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
um, over thousands of years, a difference of 5 days is inconsequential. when people talk about the age of the earth and how many years mankind has been around, they don't differentiate one from the other by adding or subtracting five days. seriously??
You said indentical, not close but identical and I'm just going by what you said.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
although your illustration is not really suitable, I get your point, except for in this instance, I trust you don't strongly reside in it.
Whatever; the point is, if you know the truth you don't need to study the lie.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
you don't "know" the earth is millions of years old. dating methods are built on assumptions that may or may not be true. and unless you can not only articulate all those assumptions, and more importantly, deal effectively with all the criticisms of those assumptions AND have faithfully examined the evidence to the contrary, then your "faith" in what you believe is a shallow and incomplete one.
I've argued for creation and know the limitations of dating methods and those limitations do not run to the billions of years.

Now, If we were talking about how long life has been on Earth that would be different but just talking about the age of the Earth itself there is no way to show the Earth is only 6000 years old.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
its pretty clear from your last question, that you have not done that.
And what question might that be?
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
feel free to continue to believe what you want, but short of rising to the essential challenge stated above, please don't pretend as if its the truth.
Likewise, feel free to continue to believe what you want, but short of rising to the essential challenge stated above, please don't pretend as if its the truth.






(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 9:00:56 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

More directly, I think to your point, Winsome. Time would have to be a construct of man because God has no use for it. Add to that: Man would have no concept of more than one hundred years or so (depending upon how far back the writings go).


Is it your point then that anything that is human construct has no use to God?


"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/29/2017 9:03:52 PM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

But, then, I also believe that when man tries to explain the unexplainable, he usually fails, miserably.


Where is this true. Michael? I wonder if you are not overstating human failures here.


"The world is flat"
"The sun revolves around the earth"
"The earth is only 6000 years old"
"The earth, as we know it, will be gone by 2005"


The list is endless, but you know that.

Nice try. No sale.





_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 1:42:09 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

You said indentical, not close but identical and I'm just going by what you said.


no, youre being a persnickety ass.

quote:

Whatever; the point is, if you know the truth you don't need to study the lie.


well that flew right over your head. when something is built on assumptions as opposed to things that can be shown to be true, differing conclusions are not matters of "lying" they are a matter of faith in the foundational assumptions. that this has to be explained to you says something about your understanding of the issue.

quote:

I've argued for creation and know the limitations of dating methods and those limitations do not run to the billions of years.


this statement tells me you actually don't know the assumptions as well as you should---let alone the criticisms associated with them, and evidence that runs to the contrary. you know, the "challenge" I tossed out for you. what im saying is, if you knew the assumptions and criticisms as well as you should, you couldn't, with intellectual integrity, say what you just said.

quote:

Now, If we were talking about how long life has been on Earth that would be different but just talking about the age of the Earth itself there is no way to show the Earth is only 6000 years old.


then you'll have to argue effectively against the biblical scholars whose understanding of the language in genesis runs contrary to yours as well as the scientists who argue likewise.

quote:

And what question might that be?


wtf?? this one:

quote:

I have studied the issue extensively but one does not need to study Ptolemy extensively to know that the earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around and likewise, once you know that the Earth is millions of years old what would be the point of studying the works of people who believe it is only 6000 years old in any real depth?


that tells me that you really have not done this:

"you don't "know" the earth is millions of years old. dating methods are built on assumptions that may or may not be true. and unless you can not only articulate all those assumptions, and more importantly, deal effectively with all the criticisms of those assumptions AND have faithfully examined the evidence to the contrary, then your "faith" in what you believe is a shallow and incomplete one."

apparently you want to dismiss people who hold to a different view as "unscholarly" and "disreputable" when they have built their careers on studying this exact issue...and then you have the temerity to reduce their work to "a lie?"

quote:

Likewise, feel free to continue to believe what you want, but short of rising to the essential challenge stated above, please don't pretend as if its the truth.


funny---parroting back what I said to you when you've actually not issued a challenge, and by virtue of my challenge to you ive implied ive already met the demands of the challenge, and ive not actually articulated my own position, speaks again to a lack of scholarship.

self justification is mankind's single greatest talent and youre up to your neck in it here.


(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 2:06:56 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again (even after this time):

I don't think this is a place where people wish to discuss/debate in order to learn. I think, for the most part, the interwebz is about people who are trying to "convert" others to the "won twue weigh".

It bolsters my belief that some of them just have to be getting paid for their efforts (especially in presidential election years).



Peace,


Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 2:11:50 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
looks like some unscholarly liars to me!

quote:

It should be recognized that it is impossible to determine with certainty any date prior to the beginning of historical records—except, of course, by divine revelation. Science, in the proper sense, is based on observation, and we have no records of observation except historical records. Natural processes can be used to estimate prehistoric dates, but not to determine such dates. The accuracy of the estimates will depend on the validity of the assumptions applied to the use of the processes in making such calculations....

(what follows are bunches of equations dealing with the assumptions)

Thus, it is concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. The origin of all things by special creation—already necessitated by many other scientific considerations—is therefore also indicated by chronometric data.

Finally, the reader should note that these conclusions were reached with no reference at all to the testimony of the Bible relative to chronology...

[and this is something that should be viewed at the website]

TABLE I Uniformitarian Estimates—Age of the Earth
Unless otherwise noted, based on standard assumptions of closed systems, constant rates, and no initial daughter components.


http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth/

"Evidence for a Young World"

quote:

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation....


http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

and then from the biblical perspective:

quote:

There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading many Christians to conclude that it just doesn’t matter. In this article, I will explain and give a brief defense of the young-earth creationist view as the only proper understanding of Scripture. All other views are compromise with error. I will also explain some of the reasons why this matters for all Christians...

The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact.


https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/young-earth-creationist-view-summarized-and-defended/

nah, that guy's not scholarly either and we'll just dismiss that statement as part of a lie and not actually have to critique it!


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 2:35:53 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
I often wondered if joether was a paid lackey.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 2:47:58 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I often wondered if joether was a paid lackey.


Rest his soul.



Peace,


Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 6:32:39 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


the most scholarly and reputable organization out there when it comes to "creation"---the institute for creation research,

I assume that you are referring to the Dallas-based 'Institute' for Creation Research(ICR).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

I found your description of this 'Institute' as "most scholarly and reputable" rather hilarious and very misleading, even if the bar is set very low by limiting the field to those involved in 'creationist research' (whatever that might be). Especially as this 'Institute's' attempts to have its science degrees recognised have been rejected. According to wiki:
"The ICR attracted much opposition when it sought approval in Texas to operate a master's degree program in science education.[41] An April 2008 survey by Texas Freedom Network showed the majority of science faculties in Texas are opposed to ICR's request to issue science degrees with 185 (95% of respondents) opposed to certifying the program and 6 (3%) in favor.[63] Officials of the institute state their goal is to integrate Biblical creationism with science. Since their program is intended to prepare students who are or will become teachers, the developing program is controversial. In public statements ICR officials say that scientific literacy will be emphasized, but science advocates critical of the ICR say the institute's true goal is to restore religious creationism to science classes in the public schools." op cit.

The ICR is nothing more than a shill house trying desperately and failing constantly to reconcile scientific knowledge and findings with an ancient text that has no scientific standing whatsoever. Most genuine scholars will advise you that any attempt to "integrate" science with a particular religious ideology is an impossible and reprehensible endeavour. The kindest way to describe your claim that the ICR is "scholarly" and "respectable" is to conclude that you have no idea what the term 'scholarly' means, and no way of distinguishing between your own personal views and "respectable scholarly" endeavours of any sort.

To put that in everyday terms, the scholarly standing of this pretend 'Institute' is precisely zero and the only respect it receives is from adherents of the deranged, fanatical, fundamentalist ideology it propagates. To conventional scholars, this 'Institute' is a sad joke that has long outlived its used-by date, not to be confused with any genuine educational, scientific or research institute under any circumstances.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 12/30/2017 6:36:58 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 6:55:29 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Even if the bar is set very low by limiting the field to those involved in creationist research (whatever that means).

Trying to find simplifications in published descriptions of a specific evolutionary processes that can be presented as flaws or errors, then insisting that this single mistake (which often isn't any such thing despite having been presented as one) invalidates the entire theory of evolution by proving it's a hoax.

Just like the way they insist that the contradictions between the four gospels, or the fact that the dimensions given for Solomon's Temple in Kings doesn't match its claimed volume proves that the whole of the Bible is a confection of hoaxes and lies assembled by con artists...


_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 8:45:13 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I often wondered if joether was a paid lackey.

Thats because you are a moron.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/30/2017 9:25:16 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2322
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

people who hold to a young earth position are not "nutcases."

whoremods point notwithstanding, they take the bible literally and use the genealogy described therein to derive the age.

the most scholarly and reputable organization out there when it comes to "creation"---the institute for creation research, holds to a young earth position.





A "young earth position"????? Is that what they are calling it? The Institute for Creation Research" is "Scholarly" and "Reputable"?????
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist faux-research organization that produces voluminous quote mines and logical fallacies in pursuit of debunking evolution and an old earth, and the ICR is the unholy spawn of San Diego Christian College. They are essentially a bunch of cranks who want to undermine science education and eventually turn the United States into a young-Earth creationist, dominionist society. The Institute was founded by Henry Morris in 1972 and has since gone on to become one of the centers of the anti-evolution movement and quite possibly the general anti-science movement in the US.


ok... Now I fully understand your position on Fox News

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/31/2017 5:53:27 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
I've always liked the suggestion that organisations like the ICR and the Creation Museum are being bankrolled by fiendish easterners who want to see science education destroyed in the the 'Sates so that biological and medical research will be dominated by Asians rather than Americans. As a theory, it's a lot more credible than intelligent design (never mind YEC), after all.



_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is t... - 12/31/2017 4:28:11 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

You said indentical, not close but identical and I'm just going by what you said.

no, youre being a persnickety ass.
Trying to insult me does not change what you said.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

Whatever; the point is, if you know the truth you don't need to study the lie.

well that flew right over your head. when something is built on assumptions as opposed to things that can be shown to be true, differing conclusions are not matters of "lying" they are a matter of faith in the foundational assumptions. that this has to be explained to you says something about your understanding of the issue.
Once again trying to insult me does not does not make your point.

Actually it is your lack of understanding of basic science and your wanting to believe someones misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says that is the issue.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

I've argued for creation and know the limitations of dating methods and those limitations do not run to the billions of years.

this statement tells me you actually don't know the assumptions as well as you should---let alone the criticisms associated with them, and evidence that runs to the contrary. you know, the "challenge" I tossed out for you. what im saying is, if you knew the assumptions and criticisms as well as you should, you couldn't, with intellectual integrity, say what you just said.
It is interesting that you seem to want to hide behind double talk words like "assumptions, criticisms and evidence" but don't seem to want to provide what these things might entail.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

Now, If we were talking about how long life has been on Earth that would be different but just talking about the age of the Earth itself there is no way to show the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Then you'll have to argue effectively against the biblical scholars whose understanding of the language in genesis runs contrary to yours as well as the scientists who argue likewise.
I've been doing so for longer than you've been alive and have yet to have a problem in doing so.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

And what question might that be?

wtf?? this one:
quote:

I have studied the issue extensively but one does not need to study Ptolemy extensively to know that the earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around and likewise, once you know that the Earth is millions of years old what would be the point of studying the works of people who believe it is only 6000 years old in any real depth?

that tells me that you really have not done this:
"you don't "know" the earth is millions of years old. dating methods are built on assumptions that may or may not be true. and unless you can not only articulate all those assumptions, and more importantly, deal effectively with all the criticisms of those assumptions AND have faithfully examined the evidence to the contrary, then your "faith" in what you believe is a shallow and incomplete one."

apparently you want to dismiss people who hold to a different view as "unscholarly" and "disreputable" when they have built their careers on studying this exact issue...and then you have the temerity to reduce their work to "a lie?"
I see a question mark but please, when you make a statement and just put a question mark at the end of it it is a little hard to understand it to even be a question.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
Likewise, feel free to continue to believe what you want, but short of rising to the essential challenge stated above, please don't pretend as if its the truth.
You seem to want to pretend what you believe is the truth, even though it flies in the face of simple basic science and yet want to deny my wanting to believe in what I believe the Bible to says and that agrees with simple basic science.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
funny---parroting back what I said to you when you've actually not issued a challenge, and by virtue of my challenge to you ive implied ive already met the demands of the challenge, and ive not actually articulated my own position, speaks again to a lack of scholarship.
You want a challenge? Show me how all the simple basic science is wrong when it says the Earth is about 4 billion years old. The dating might be off be millions of years but it is not off by billions of years.
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
self justification is mankind's single greatest talent and youre up to your neck in it here.
Once again insults, honestly what do you hope to accomplish with them?

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: It's time once more to hit the "The bible is the absolute truth" bunch in the balls. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.145