Bible cant be true because of million year old fossils/carbon dating...right?
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
You can't use Nobel laureates to argue - period. You have no argument to begin with.
You post what appear to be a few personal thoughts of a prize winner and then from behind it , you seem to believe you have earned some right or have some sort of credibility to call people a piece of shit . That's a delusion you have, not an argument.
Any personal views of any scientist Nobel or not, are not grounds for claiming anyone who does not agree with those personal views are either a fool or a piece of shit.
It may be the arrangement you have with your priest that you call people a piece of shit, whenever you come across those who donât suffer from your religious psychosis, but fortunately there is a tad more rationality and tolerance for sensible argument in the real world. Especially so in Science.
As I understand it there are varying positions within the christian faith regarding this: Some are of the position that the Bible is a series of narratives written by real (and imperfect) men over a long period of time, and it is these to which my point refers - given the advancements in science, technology and understanding, it seems sensible (to me, at least) that the errors / misjudgements of the authors can be acknowledged without compromising the legitimacy of the messages and lessons that the authors are aiming to teach.
Others who believe that the Bible is the direct word of God - well, for those who believe this to be the case, I can understand the will to defend claims from Science that what is stated in the Bible simply cannot be true.
We do have the science to prove the claims that the world is 6,000 years old are false.
Pardon my ignorance, but I had to Google "theistic evolutionists" - and from the VERY brief introduction, I can't see why that view cannot be the case.
I disagree. There are lessons in the Bible that are good to learn for their own sake - the good samaritan, forgiveness, and so on. These are worthwhile in their own right.
The methods of modern scientists are corporeal, and have shown that they can be used to further an understanding of the behaviour of the world around us.
It doesn't matter who wrote the Bible, there are still things that are written that we can say are false. The tangible science shows this, while the argument that science is wrong - because God is greater than science - is made up of intangibles and conjecture. It is this last point that really makes the difference IMO - no matter how conclusive the evidence, one will always be able to retort "but that is nothing compared to God", just like scientists will always ask "why?".
Go fuck yourself, and choke out that shitty everlasting turd untill it chokes you to death.
Its in the scripture.... you have a god given duty to die a horrible death, at your own hand , because you were wrong. Pentacostals, catholics, presbyterians, anglicans, just all DIE already, because you were all wrong.
Wrong, baby , wrong.
Its in the scripture.... you have a god given duty to die a horrible death, at your own hand , because you were wrong. Pentacostals, catholics, presbyterians, anglicans, just all DIE already, because you were all wrong.
Wrong, baby , wrong.
OK, I'll bite.............prove away !
My bad.............sounded like a conclusion in search of proof
