nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 280:
Line 280: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 13:48, May 13, 2008
, 13:48, May 13, 2008→It's not a religion: Learn the arguments before saying they are wrong.
:What exactly is your argument for creationism and against evolution? I can’t see that you have made it clear, although if you have, please point it out. That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted. The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous. I don’t see how you can take umbrage to it. There is much to be said for the account of the Bible, however. The Flat Earth Society was certainly serious in respect to their belief that Earth is flat (based on Biblical quotes) but if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke or that Charles Darwin lied in his journal (which is highly unlikely considering his devout religious upbringing), then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales. The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends. There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them. The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). This one is commonly used by Christian apologists to defend the Bible’s purported scientific accuracy. However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical. And in case you were wondering, they did have a word for sphere in old Hebrew, which is basically synonymous with “ball” (Isaiah 40:22) (same book, too). If we were to believe that the Bible was the unmoving, unchanging word of God and scientifically infallible, we must believe that Earth rests on pillars (Psalm 75:3, Samuel 2:8). Oh, and let us not forget that big dispute between Galileo and the Church in which Galileo claimed that Earth isn’t stationary when the Bible clearly said that it was (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 96:10). The point is that the no religious text, including the Bible, should be put forward or even juxtaposed with science. One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature. I don’t see how Galileo and Darwin are any different in this case. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 12:34, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:What exactly is your argument for creationism and against evolution? I can’t see that you have made it clear, although if you have, please point it out. That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted. The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous. I don’t see how you can take umbrage to it. There is much to be said for the account of the Bible, however. The Flat Earth Society was certainly serious in respect to their belief that Earth is flat (based on Biblical quotes) but if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke or that Charles Darwin lied in his journal (which is highly unlikely considering his devout religious upbringing), then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales. The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends. There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them. The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). This one is commonly used by Christian apologists to defend the Bible’s purported scientific accuracy. However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical. And in case you were wondering, they did have a word for sphere in old Hebrew, which is basically synonymous with “ball” (Isaiah 40:22) (same book, too). If we were to believe that the Bible was the unmoving, unchanging word of God and scientifically infallible, we must believe that Earth rests on pillars (Psalm 75:3, Samuel 2:8). Oh, and let us not forget that big dispute between Galileo and the Church in which Galileo claimed that Earth isn’t stationary when the Bible clearly said that it was (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 96:10). The point is that the no religious text, including the Bible, should be put forward or even juxtaposed with science. One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature. I don’t see how Galileo and Darwin are any different in this case. [[User:Kilmarnock|Kilmarnock]] 12:34, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Your comment that "One is a personal belief system and another is the gathering of information to determine the forces of nature" is itself a personal belief, and one that I don't share. Rather, one is the infallible world of the omniscient God, and the other, particularly when it comes to evolution, is the fallible musings of people who are unable to observe the events they say happened, and who are generally storytelling from an anti-God point of view.
:: What exactly are my arguments? Sorry, but that's such a huge question that it can't be adequately answered here. Try reading many of the articles [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. And if you don't know what the arguments are, then you have no business trying to say that the arguments are wrong. In a nutshell, however, it is as I put above: creation (the event) has been revealed to us by the Creator Himself, so we can reliably believe that. Evolution is a story intended to explain how things came to be without God, and is not really science, as it is a story about the unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable, past. Further, what evidence can be gathered (fossils, etc.) are more consistent with the creationary view than the evolutionary view.
:: "''That rant about the scientific account is quite twisted.''": Oh? In what way?
:: "''The source saying that creationists use the scientific account of genesis is clearly unambiguous.''": What source?
:: "''...if you want to accept the assumption that the Flat Earth Society is a joke ... then you must accept the possibility that the Bible is not the word of a supreme deity and really just annals of faerie tales''": Why? One is not dependent on the other.
:: "''...if you want to accept ... that Charles Darwin lied in his journal ...''": I you reread my previous posts, I explicitly denied claiming that Darwin lied.
:: "''The problem with the Bible is that it is no more than the stuff of legends.''": According to whom? You've supplied no evidence of that, and there is a widespread belief, and plenty of evidence, that it's accurate history, so the onus is on you to support that claim.
:: "''There are many passages that have been defended by fundamentalists, but are challenged by so much scientific evidence that the apologists are eventually forced to ignore them.''": I don't know of one such passage that is "ignored".
:: "''The Bible says that Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22)...However, Earth is not round, Earth is spherical.'' (rest snipped)": This is a classic bibliosceptic case of trying to find problems where none exist by playing with words. A recent [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html New Scientist article] attacking creationists referred to the "scientific fact" of the "roundness of the Earth" (and it was taken to task for not describing it as spherical!). On my Wikipedia user page I referred to the world being "round", only to have an evolutionist tell me that I wasn't correct, as "The planet earth is closer to an oblate spheriod, or a generalized ellipsoid with lateral heterogeneities"! That is, it wasn't actually spherical!
:: Another problem with bibliosceptic arguments is that, despite falsely accusing creationists of taking the Bible "literally", they do it themselves! Your claim about the Earth being supported on pillars and being unmovable is supported by a series of verses, every one taken from a passage of poetry or song! Haven't you ever heard of poetic licence? And Galileo was a creationist, objecting to the secular views that the church had adopted. Kind of like creationists today objecting to evolution!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)