nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→"Many" atheists edit: Not necessarily "evil", but trying to eliminate God.
When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down. ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it. So it is ''your'' problem to reconcile both sides, but not ''theirs''. Although your feelings are understandable, it is unjust for you to be angry with the scientists for causing you problems. They don't do it because they are evil, but because it part of the job description of what scientists do. They'd probably like you when they'd meet you.[[User:Order|Order]] 03:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down. ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it. So it is ''your'' problem to reconcile both sides, but not ''theirs''. Although your feelings are understandable, it is unjust for you to be angry with the scientists for causing you problems. They don't do it because they are evil, but because it part of the job description of what scientists do. They'd probably like you when they'd meet you.[[User:Order|Order]] 03:33, 4 December 2007 (EST)
:I fail to see your point about eyewitnesses. Surely "any human observation" is essentially synonymous with "eyewitness" (ignoring that one refers to the act and the other to the person).
:"''From you wording it seems like you take personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''": What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
:"''Take the differences between the two creation accounts...''": What so contradictory about them? One is written as a chronological sequence of creation week events, the other as a non-chronological look at the first family. There's no contradictions.
:"''...or when it talks about the "sons of god"...''": Yes, reading a metaphor or euphemism literally can cause problems, which is why I don't do it.
:"''But if you could read the bible literally, there would be no need for apologists ...''": The reason there are apologists is not because of contradictions, but because of people claiming that it says things that it doesn't.
:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''": Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God? Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.
:"''And over the centuries even Christian scientist had to accept that the bible is not a great book when it comes to science.''": Only the ones that have been taken in by the atheistic ideas of Hutton, Darwin, etc.
:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.
:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.
:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''": Which scientists are you talking about? In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive. That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 4 December 2007 (EST)
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==
==Tides and the earth-moon distance==