You did in a way. It is possible to crest something over many steps and years. Take cars for examples did we get to a Ferrari f40 in one go or has it taken thousands of iterations over many years? But we still created it.
Does finding life on another planet disprove religion?
- Thread starter Valentino
- Start date
You did in a way. It is possible to crest something over many steps and years. Take cars for examples did we get to a Ferrari f40 in one go or has it taken thousands of iterations over many years? But we still created it.
I always want to weigh in on these religious debates we have here in GD. But I always know that saying anything about religion in anyway is like opening up a can of worms and each of those worms is full of little baby worms and the baby worms dream about cans of worms in the womb and they live in a modal realism multiverse so every action each worm takes creates a new universe full of worms.
Yet the Bible is not the Qu'ran and even the earliest theologians schooled evolution of interpretation, like the aforementioned Augustine of Hippo.
You base your conjecture on assumption and commonly held fallacies.
Also the Bible is not the only source of theological study, and as a former catholic if I recall you saying, you should realise that they advocate the New Covenant over the Old, thus negating much of the basis of your conjecture as it seems based on the OT rather than the New.
Last edited:
What are you babbling about....Evolution is merely a mechanism, it is not a presumption of anything even remotely advocating proof there is no God.
Evolution is a mechanism that occurs via selection and random mutation, without the outside control of God.
And tell me, how exactly did birds come before land animals (see Genesis, birds are created a day before land animals)
Having witnessed this argument countless times on the forum, I can't help but think your argument would could across much better if there were concessions that you have to be extremely loose with your interpretion of the bible in order to make it fit in with our scientific understanding.
Also, I find it a weak card to pull whenever it comes to 'science can only do x' (not saying you specifically) because it's clear what rypt is trying to say and accordingly it just feels like a bit of a meaningless niggle to play down a point someone else is making.
Loose is an understatement, you have to completely disregard parts of the bible, or the order of things occurring (again, birds being created before land animals)
And you know this how?
What is the origin of the mechanism?
Literal usage of Genesis is something discarded by most theologians since the 3rd century, you may want to catch up.
Augustine of Hippo in the 4th Century said that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way and that it bears a spiritual, rather than a physical meaning.
Last edited:
Define literal, even if you ignore the "day" aspect the ORDER of things being created is wrong.
It goes beyond not covering everything, beyond exaggerating, it quite simply is WRONG order.
If Genesis is just a story, which is factually wrong, then why should we not assume that the rest of the Bible is not also just a story, that is factually wrong?
IDK, there are plenty of scientific publications of extreme merit which have incorrect information.
Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer, but your argument is flawed.
and the things that he still correct about have scientific fact/theory to back them up ... something that most of the bible does not
Because there are evidenced based facts in it.
You are repeating the same ignorant point over and over behind some babble in the hope that the end result is somehow changed.
I think you may have to consider that many Christians believe that the bible IS factually wrong. If you can accept that, but believe in the outline of the Christian god, then what?
People end up arguing on circles on here only because someone has attempted to crystallise what people should believe if they are religious, which is ulimately silly because everyone thinks differently and will have different interpretations, as well as taking what they like and leaving what they don't.
My parents believe in the Christian god in the sense that he is responsible for the creation of the universe, but thing that genesis is just a story without a shred of fact. Does that compute with anyone?
It's quite sad, imho, that most of these threads descend into 'science v religion' and 'nitpicking' over flaws that don't even exist. If you want to reject theology, philosphy and/or spirituality - fine. But at least do so off your own bat rather than from a perspective of 'lolreligion' when you clearly don't even understand the thing you're dismissing.
If we had a Philosophy/Psychology/Spirituality sub-forum where prior reading / background knowledge was a requirement of posting, the discussions would be a lot more interesting. Oh well, I can dream.
Even if the bible was decried as outright fairytale (which is a gross over simplification), that still doesn't negate the existence of a deity, creator, and/or universal consciousness. These threads are far too bogged down in the detail.
If we had a Philosophy/Psychology/Spirituality sub-forum where prior reading / background knowledge was a requirement of posting, the discussions would be a lot more interesting. Oh well, I can dream.
Even if the bible was decried as outright fairytale (which is a gross over simplification), that still doesn't negate the existence of a deity, creator, and/or universal consciousness. These threads are far too bogged down in the detail.
He's on some mission to use science to pull one over the 'stupid' fairy tale believers to show his superiority and their lack of intellect in his opinion; totally missing the point of faith.
Total utter ignorance, and he's too daft to realise it.
Total utter ignorance, and he's too daft to realise it.
Then it serves as further proof that god does not really exist since everyone believes in a different one
This is where your understanding of science falls apart, there is no evidence for random, science is unable to prove such things, it is simply the simplest explanation to explain the results we see, science can very really proof or show the how.