The Truth of the bible

[Themiclesia]

It is infallible! Creation is actually better than evolution.

Evolution-Bombardier beetle explodes before it gets the inhibitor
Creation-Does not explode because everything needed is already there

You couldn't pick an example that hasn't already been refuted on Youtube? I mean, don't get me wrong, this is garbage logic, but you couldn't look for something a little more... obscure?

Given the lack of scientific background during the Biblical period, creationism is the most feasible way of illustrating the way the world came about.

[Highfort]

You couldn't pick an example that hasn't already been refuted on Youtube? I mean, don't get me wrong, this is garbage logic, but you couldn't look for something a little more... obscure?

Given the lack of scientific background during the Biblical period, creationism is the most feasible way of illustrating the way the world came about.

I'm not bashing on historical creation stories but the post I quoted was using a typical contemporary creationist argument that gets thrown up time and time again. It needs to die.

The bombadier beetle, the eye, and other such "irreducibly complex" systems which intelligent design and creationist proponents truck out when taking cheap shots at evolutionary theory are anything but. A failure to understand why they are not irreducibly complex is an indication of a misunderstanding of biology, not some sort of proof against evolution.

[Adventus Secundus]

Given the lack of scientific background during the Biblical period, creationism is the most feasible way of illustrating the way the world came about.

I'm not bashing on historical creation stories but the post I quoted was using a typical contemporary creationist argument that gets thrown up time and time again. It needs to die.

The bombadier beetle, the eye, and other such "irreducibly complex" systems which intelligent design and creationist proponents truck out when taking cheap shots at evolutionary theory are anything but. A failure to understand why they are not irreducibly complex is an indication of a misunderstanding of biology, not some sort of proof against evolution.

Please explain

[Themiclesia]

Given how Genesis places most elements of creation in the correct order, i.e. light or photons from darkness or the singularity, firmament or space, animals before humans etc. I would not say it is too far from the truth. However nobody in their senses would explain 13.7 billion years worth of cosmological history to the Hebrews, so I credit Genisis with a rudimentary understanding of the creation of thr universe.

[Dyakovo]

Given how Genesis places most elements of creation in the correct order<snip>.

[Adventus Secundus]

Given how Genesis places most elements of creation in the correct order<snip>.

Contributing to a profitable and enriching dialogue, I see.

[Dyakovo]

Contributing to a profitable and enriching dialogue, I see.

But mom! He started it!

[Korhal IVV]

The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

[Neutraligon]

The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

We know the former is a single proton and a single electron. What does stupidity break down into?

[Grave_n_idle]

Elements of the bible, primarily the existence of a Christ-like figure and his death at the hands of the Romans, are potentially true. Other parts are debatable.

Much like many texts, it clearly draws on actual events in some instances, while wholly fabricating others to convey it's message.

TL;DR: Parts could be true, but things like the universe creation stories and the great flood are more than likely fictional.

The 'death at the hands of the Romans' bit is pretty unlikely.

Not because they didn't execute people - but because it's unlikely that the prefect of the region would impose such a punishment for what was ultimately supposed to be an internal issue among Jews.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I just read it as a novel, to be honest.

[Imperializt Russia]

We are not observing objects with an electron microscope. We are observing interactions objects make with electron beams.
We are inferring information from that observation, that said object is there and is tangible.

Which is exactly the case for atoms and the electron microscope. Views of the moon are actually reflections of EM radiation from the sun from its surface, refracted when passing through the atmosphere, collected in our eyes, and transduced to neuronal patterns within the retina. The observation of atoms via electron microscope requires fewer intermediaries than that.

You're missing the point. EM radiation in the visible spectrum is information we can detect, understand and observe ourselves.

IR imagers, UV imagers, X-ray imagers, SEM imagers, AFM imagers use radiation that we cannot detect, understand, or observe. It has to be converted to information we can understand - an image rendered in light of the visible spectrum. False-colour.

[Herrebrugh]

I just read it as a novel, to be honest.

Similarly, I've begun seeing Christianity as an oversized, overactive book club.

[Deepverse Project]

Given how Genesis places most elements of creation in the correct order<snip>.

He is correct. Algorithms confirm elements were created in order.

[Grave_n_idle]

He is correct. Algorithms confirm elements were created in order.

Photovore plants existed before light? That seems unlikely.

[Archegnum]

He is correct. Algorithms confirm elements were created in order.

Photovore plants existed before light? That seems unlikely.

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

[Neutraligon]

Photovore plants existed before light? That seems unlikely.

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.

[Archegnum]

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.

Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.

[Neutraligon]

And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.

Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.

...Um first evolution has nothing to do with the planet. Second, umm scientists know the sun came before its planets.

[Herrebrugh]

And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.

Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.

... This doesn't have anything to do with evolution, you know... You could believe in evolution and believe that the sun came after planets...

[Archegnum]

Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.

...Um first evolution has nothing to do with the planet. Second, umm scientists know the sun came before its planets.

I'm asking what evidence atheists have to back up the belief that the sun came into being before the planets. I want to know, no atheist or long-age creationist has ever told me.

... This doesn't have anything to do with evolution, you know... You could believe in evolution and believe that the sun came after planets...

Actually, the Bible and evolution are irreconcilable to one another. The Creation narrative directly contradicts basic evolutionist beliefs, while evolutionary and long-age teachings undermine the prophecy of the Messiah, needed due to the original Fall of mankind. Without the Creation narrative, the gospels mean nothing.


And yes, I used evolutionist in the wrong context. I was trying to think of a word that encapsulates all anti-Biblical people as one group. Evolutionist was the wrong term.

[Neutraligon]

...Um first evolution has nothing to do with the planet. Second, umm scientists know the sun came before its planets.

I'm asking what evidence atheists have to back up the belief that the sun came into being before the planets. I want to know, no atheist or long-age creationist has ever told me.

... This doesn't have anything to do with evolution, you know... You could believe in evolution and believe that the sun came after planets...

Actually, the Bible and evolution are irreconcilable to one another. The Creation narrative directly contradicts basic evolutionist beliefs, while evolutionary and long-age teachings undermine the prophecy of the Messiah, needed due to the original Fall of mankind. Without the Creation narrative, the gospels mean nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation ... lar_System

Gravity is truly incredible.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I just read it as a novel, to be honest.

Similarly, I've begun seeing Christianity as an oversized, overactive book club.

Yeah, but a book club reads a varieties of book, not two that are very similar.

[Grave_n_idle]

Photovore plants existed before light? That seems unlikely.

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

Nope, that can't be 'assumed', at all.'

Only a very narrow range of electromagnetic light is usable by plants. There's no reason at all to believe that some nameless 'light' that appeared before our sun (that provides the kind of light our plants need) could satisfy that need in place of the sun.

Further, it's illogical to even assume that extra stage.

[Neutraligon]

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

Nope, that can't be 'assumed', at all.'

Only a very narrow range of electromagnetic light is usable by plants. There's no reason at all to believe that some nameless 'light' that appeared before our sun (that provides the kind of light our plants need) could satisfy that need in place of the sun.

Further, it's illogical to even assume that extra stage.

The main sources of light in our universe are stars (including our sun). The closest star other than our sun is so far away that the light it would provide would be insufficient to provide the energy necessary for plants to function.