Contradictions in the Bible?

[dilloduck]

Why?



Why?



...and why? This is the crux of the matter for me.

Maybe we are to learn for ourselves and learning for ourselves is the only way to be sure. Natue didn't exactly hand science an instuction manual.

 

[Diuretic]

Maybe we are to learn for ourselves and learning for ourselves is the only way to be sure. Natue didn't exactly hand science an instuction manual.

If we all had to learn for ourselves, as individuals, we'd still be sitting in caves wondering if it was safe to go outside. What differentiates humans from most (must be a bit careful with claims here) is that not only do we learn from our individual experiences but we learn from others. We have, in a very brief time (relatively speaking) moved from being hunter-gatherers to dominating the planet. Other animals on the Earth are doing exactly what their ancestors did thousands and thousands of years ago. Crocodiles still wait around in the water and leap at things. Humans have been to the Moon. Language and writing have enabled us to get out of the cave and into the skyscraper. Our ability to acquire and use shared knowledge means that we can treat each other's illnesses and not lay around in the back of the cave waiting to die.

 

[dilloduck]

If we all had to learn for ourselves, as individuals, we'd still be sitting in caves wondering if it was safe to go outside. What differentiates humans from most (must be a bit careful with claims here) is that not only do we learn from our individual experiences but we learn from others. We have, in a very brief time (relatively speaking) moved from being hunter-gatherers to dominating the planet. Other animals on the Earth are doing exactly what their ancestors did thousands and thousands of years ago. Crocodiles still wait around in the water and leap at things. Humans have been to the Moon. Language and writing have enabled us to get out of the cave and into the skyscraper. Our ability to acquire and use shared knowledge means that we can treat each other's illnesses and not lay around in the back of the cave waiting to die.

We've come a long way---now we lie around on machines until someone unplugs us.

 

[Diuretic]

We've come a long way---now we lie around on machines until someone unplugs us.

Different topic for another thread

 

[dilloduck]

Different topic for another thread

OK ok---now we live longer and die in hospitals or car wrecks?

 

[Diuretic]

OK ok---now we live longer and die in hospitals or car wrecks?

Ain't biting

 

[Joz]

Do you consider creationism (in its current form, with the little evidence that we have) to be a science or a belief?

Creation and evolution both are beliefs.

 

[Diuretic]

Creation and evolution both are beliefs.

No they're not Joz. Creation is a belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. They are two very different things.

I fail to understand why there is a need for a believer to attack science by claiming that evolution is a belief. It's a calumny.

 

[MissileMan]

Or the equally absurd "science is a religion" argument.

 

[dilloduck]

Or the equally absurd "science is a religion" argument.

It's all absurd

 

[Diuretic]

It's all absurd

The whole kerfuffle is absurd. I can't even think why it's all in issue. If people wish to believe in creation and/or a literal view of The Bible then good luck to them, they are entitled to hold their beliefs. What gets my goat is where some think that science is an attack on their belief. It isn't. Science is not trying to persuade them to doubt their own faith.

 

[dilloduck]

The whole kerfuffle is absurd. I can't even think why it's all in issue. If people wish to believe in creation and/or a literal view of The Bible then good luck to them, they are entitled to hold their beliefs. What gets my goat is where some think that science is an attack on their belief. It isn't. Science is not trying to persuade them to doubt their own faith.

I don't think religions have anything to fear from science either--no one is ever going to discover answers the really important questions conclusively.

 

[MissileMan]

I don't think religions have anything to fear from science either--no one is ever going to discover answers the really important questions conclusively.

And when was the last time a group of scientists burned someone for heresy?

 

[Joz]

No they're not Joz. Creation is a belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. They are two very different things.

I fail to understand why there is a need for a believer to attack science by claiming that evolution is a belief. It's a calumny.

Okay, one is a belief one is a theory, neither is provable.

]The whole kerfuffle is absurd. I can't even think why it's all in issue. If people wish to believe in creation and/or a literal view of The Bible then good luck to them, they are entitled to hold their beliefs. What gets my goat is where some think that science is an attack on their belief. It isn't. Science is not trying to persuade them to doubt their own faith.

Exactly. But how many evolutionists are guilty of the same thing? I think it's pretty much tit for tat.

 

[dilloduck]

And when was the last time a group of scientists burned someone for heresy?

When was the last time a preacher dropped a nuke?

 

[MissileMan]

When was the last time a preacher dropped a nuke?

What does that have to do with anything? Besides...when has a scientist dropped one? Seems to me it was a government that did.

 

[dilloduck]

What does that have to do with anything? Besides...when has a scientist dropped one? Seems to me it was a government that did.

Look--science isn't all its cracked up to be as far as solving what ails mankind--in fact science has created weapons of war and made conclusions that were erroneous resulting in the deaths of millions who believed what science claimed was "safe".

 

[Diuretic]

Okay, one is a belief one is a theory, neither is provable.
Exactly. But how many evolutionists are guilty of the same thing? I think it's pretty much tit for tat.

The difference Joz is that belief can reside in someone's mind but it can't be proven. "A" might tell me that he believes in something but all I'm hearing are words. "A "could be telling me a lie. And how would I convince "C" that, simply because "A" told me he believed something, then "A" really did believe? I can't prove it.

On the theory of evolution. There are a number of objective observations, things are looked at, pointed out, seen. There they are. Explanations can be derived from those observations. Those explanations can be tested and found wanting or found to be satisfactory explanations (within current knowledge) of the observations.

There are no "evolutionists" - evolution as a theory exists independent of what a group of people think of it.

As for those who don't believe who attack believers (and that's not just atheists because we know believers of different religions really get stuck into each other) - it's wrong. But it's not connected with science. It's not science that's doing the attacking.

 

[MissileMan]

Look--science isn't all its cracked up to be as far as solving what ails mankind--in fact science has created weapons of war and made conclusions that were erroneous resulting in the deaths of millions who believed what science claimed was "safe".

And I suppose you'll claim that religion has never been a "weapon of mass destruction".

Please give an example of the bolded part.

 

[Diuretic]

Look--science isn't all its cracked up to be as far as solving what ails mankind--in fact science has created weapons of war and made conclusions that were erroneous resulting in the deaths of millions who believed what science claimed was "safe".

No, people have created weapons and people have used weapons. Remember "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

As for erroneous conclusions killing millions. I am keen to hear more.