100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 129:
Line 129: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 12:29, May 14, 2007
, 12:29, May 14, 2007→Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.
:My main problem with claims that the bible was guided by god or written by him or any variation on that theme, is that it is a circular form of logic. "The bible was written by god because the bible shows proof of god. These proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong." Do you see where I am coming from?
:There is a lot of evidence against the great flood. Firstly, where did the water come from? If the world was covered in water then there would have to have been far far more water than exists today. Where has it gone? There is no evidence for this water. What about the animals that came off the ship? How big would the ship have to be to contain pairs of all the species of animals, plus the food to feed them with? What about inbreeding once the floodwaters subsided? A lot of animals would have simply failed to breed or have died out within a few generations. Where are the fossils? Of all of the animals and humans that were killed at the time of the great flood, a lot would have fossilised. So why are there no great bands of fossils that indicate a mass drowning such as this? There are more problems with the story, such as the current population of all the animal species etc. however surely these problems indicate that the bible is not actually literally true.
:Ok, not 'all' the evidence does. But most of it. And it is the simplest theory, Occam's Razor strikes again. I have read the creationist theories of the age of the universe and starlight reaching the earth and so on, and I was impressed with how fair they can be. On the other hand it seemed to be a rather convoluted way to explain why we can see stars that are 13 billion years old, compared to the rather simple "because the star ''is'' 13 billion years old".
:Ah ok, my mistake. Well he has his objections to the book, yet he is still an atheist. However I do understand his point of view (I think) because i did think that the book could have been improved a little and there were some weaknesses with his points. On the other hand there were some excellent arguments in there and also some very good scientific explanations regarding how god was created in the minds of humans and other things.
:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007