Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.Your "open mind doesn't believe in GOD. I suppose you don't believe Jesus came back from the dead ---- I rest my case!Sorry, but it is far more likely that the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion of the factual oratory "tradition" if not a later story then the Genesis account itself. The Bible story is far more concise and plausible ------ without a lot of details that make no sense. I told you matter of factly that mountains such as are your concerned didn't exist but were a result of the FLOOD. The earth GOD created was a beautiful place without the dangers of cliffs and boulders and lack of oxygen.-Open mind? What do you consider open mind? The way I read it, the only thing you are claiming is that somehow the Bible answers my questions asked. In order for your view of the world to make sense and give you your "open mind" I have to reject all what is known about science, in order to fit your biblical story that is in fact a derivative of the epic of Gilgamesh, not an early Jewish story.
Not for nothing that isn't an open mind, that is in fact the opposite. Rejecting all explanations that don't fit the religious account.
- I gave you frankly more respect then the article deserved. I sourced your article and I answered specific problems I have with the article. The only comeback you give is "read the Bible".
The Pre-Flood World: What Was the Original Creation Like?Here we go again. Rejecting everything that doesn't fit your belief. I've given you a few pointed questions, all of which you ignore if favor of spouting completely unsubstantiated and frankly unbelievable claims. The Bible is more plausible?????? Parting the Red Sea, a flood that covers the entire planet, etc plausible??? The epic of Gilgamesh was written 2100 BC. the book of revelation was written 65 AD. The book of Genesis was written between 1440 and 1400 BC. Somehow though Gilgamesh took it's story from those books? Nipper your "open mind" isn't working for me. If you aren't interested in backing up anything you say, but are perfectly happy with talking utter nonsense there is no point in talking. So against my better judgement one more time.Sorry, but it is far more likely that the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion of the factual oratory "tradition" if not a later story then the Genesis account itself. The Bible story is far more concise and plausible ------ without a lot of details that make no sense. I told you matter of factly that mountains such as are your concerned didn't exist but were a result of the FLOOD. The earth GOD created was a beautiful place without the dangers of cliffs and boulders and lack of oxygen.-Open mind? What do you consider open mind? The way I read it, the only thing you are claiming is that somehow the Bible answers my questions asked. In order for your view of the world to make sense and give you your "open mind" I have to reject all what is known about science, in order to fit your biblical story that is in fact a derivative of the epic of Gilgamesh, not an early Jewish story.
Not for nothing that isn't an open mind, that is in fact the opposite. Rejecting all explanations that don't fit the religious account.
- I gave you frankly more respect then the article deserved. I sourced your article and I answered specific problems I have with the article. The only comeback you give is "read the Bible".
The Pre-Flood World: What Was the Original Creation Like?
- Who was involved in this expedition that is so prestigious that you are willing to disregard the fact that no actual peer reviewed article was published. That the evidence to back up the claim is spotty at best?
(fossilization twice as fast as has ever been seen before) and that you have no problem with the expedition claiming to have found evidence of technology that wasn't seen again until modern times.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.