Scientists Should Not Dismiss Genesis So Quickly

by Chris Tann 112 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Captain Obvious

  Chris Tann, the only "believer in god" who responded, is an idiot. Check out his other thread, seriously. Cofty's description is accurate.

  CrazyGuy used to be like you on here actually. I'll admit his threads frustrated the hell out of myself a some others here on the board for a while.

  He came to a more accurate view in his own time, just as you might.

  You need to understand, though that what you are attempting to do here is a waste of time. The bible is not scientifically accurate just because some believers can cherry pick a verse and shape it's "meaning" to fit modern science. This involves a huge amount of ignorance and is actually quite dishonest.

  I'm not a scientologist, far from it but if one or two parts of Dianetics can be interpreted as scientifically accurate, does that make the entirety of Dianetics scientifically accurate and true? No. It's the same with the bible. So much is contradictory to facts, that there's really no point in trying to prove it as scientifically accurate.
• 

  Reclaimer_117

  This is total garbage. Genesis can't even make it past verse 2. The bible says that an earth filled with water existed before god created light. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen didn't come into existence until roughly 800 million years - only after stars formed. So water simply could not have existed before there was light. If you're goino to say, "thats not what it means" or "you can't take it literally" then your God needs to learn to communicate better! Either way, this is pseudoscience hogwash.
• 

  kaik

  The article was written by idiot Hutchins, evangelical preacher who is determined to prove -as all evangelicals do-, that Bible is literaly true in every verse, every word. Anyone who reads that book knows that it is not associated whatsoever with NASA nor has any support among peer review journals and articles. No educational and scientific organization supports it. There are so many errors in that article that anyone serious working for NASA would disapproved. For example the notion that 500 millions years that explosion of life was possible due large dry masses. Dry land existed well before, at least since 1.8 billions and geologists have names for these proto-continent. However, I do not feel to educate you as you have more trust in non-sense evangelical garbage over books that you can get from universities dedicated to geological history and astronomy.
• 

  Apognophos

  Sorry that people are not always kind here, Chris Tann. The reason is that they have all been where you are now mentally, and have moved past those beliefs, so they have no respect for them now. The problem is that they forget what it's like to believe that way, and don't remember how they would have wanted to be talked to at that time.

  An additional contributing factor is that we do have a couple disingenuous Christian posters here who do a copy-paste-and-run on the forum from time to time, with no interest in having a conversation, and your OP made you look like another one of them. I guess you didn't mean to paste all that, so it was a miscommunication.

  Anyway, you asked for specific points to respond to, and I wanted to remind you that I gave two examples of problematic points in the Genesis account in the third post in this thread. Thanks.
• 

  hamsterbait

  Cofty - SHAMe on you! The very least you could do in response to this honest-hearted never ending effort is to get immersed in Mercury as a Lucifers witless...
• 

  Vidiot

  poopsiecakes - "It's pretty easy to understand why believers are so desperate to prove that the Genesis account must be accurate. Without Genesis being correct, there's no need for a savior and hence, no Jesus required."

  It always surprises me that people keep trying to understand why fundies can't accept evolution, but still haven't grasped this.
• 

  RichardHaley

  It cracks me up how people take the Hubble images and attribute their beauty to the creator without ever realizing they have been digitally mastered with color pixels so we can see them.
• 

  LV101

  Thank you for bringing up how the Hubble images being enhanced, RichardHaley. Husband and I had been discussing the 'mastered' colors.

  I'm trying to figure out what's on the other side of the black holes other than just more expansion of universe. No sign of God.
• 

  prologos

  RV & LV Hubble is just like a better set of glasses, and colouring, staining is an old technique to bring out details, think of the radioactive dies, tracers for medical images. It does not change the reality, only makes it visible to us, and

  We see only a very small slice of the vast universe, never mind the cosmos,. we do not see the light that has already passed us by, and the light that is still on the way, and the light that is not coming in our direction anyway.

  No sign of the creator yet? if it is not hidden in these coming messages, perhaps we already see the sign, held up, loud and clear?

  the sign on a post?

  to use a hacknayed phrase: " No other sign will be given you, than--"
• 

  cofty

  A deist god is precisely as much use as no god.

  Ignore him/her and carry on.