Simple, the creation story can hardly be refuted by science. You have such a double simply because you don't know what history is and what science is. Science basically doesn't have the accuracy in applying to what happened in the past. History on the other hand, is a result of human testimonies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biblical literalism
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
Simple, the creation story can hardly be refuted by science. You have such a double simply because you don't know what history is and what science is. Science basically doesn't have the accuracy in applying to what happened in the past. History on the other hand, is a result of human testimonies.
Much of the Bible is not historical, you certainly cannot rely on things people are have claimed to be true if they aren't credible. I think science is where it is at, not a book of fairy tales.
That remains your own claim. How do you evaluate its credibility?
For the sake of argument, let's start by assuming what being said is true. Then what do you expect this truth to convey?
The things claimed in the Bible are as credible as the stories in the Harry Potter books, which are a better read. I don't believe anything to be true unless there is verifiable evidence to back it up, there is none where the Bible is concerned.
sooda
Veteran Member
The Jewish creation story was created during the exile in Babylon before 538 BC.
sooda
Veteran Member
The OT stories were never intended as history or science. The Jewish sages knew that. Look at Rambam and what he said about science over myth. They are completely different and serve two different purposes.
So...you’re going to ignore those perfect dimensional ratios? That is evidence.
But there is more! Lots more!
Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood
Audie
Veteran Member
You can bring up anything you like as evidence for
something, but it only needs one detail to disprove it.
What btw do you mean by "on the top of Everest"?
Please try to be somewhat specific.
A layer of frozen mud?
How thick?
In the event, the existence of polar ice older than
any possible flood disproves the flood story.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Have you ever been exposed to evidence that contradicts the claims in the link you shared?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, atheists use a literal interpretation of the Bible to refute the claims of literalists. Most of us do not have much of an argument against those Christians that do not make that error.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
we have been over this before. Those dimensions are not ideal. If they were you could have found a reliable source to quote. You had to use one that believes in the mythical flood.
Also Moses did not write anything. Fictional characters cannot really write the stories that they appear in.
It's also the testimony of geological records, which are more reliable than human "testimonies". Way more reliable.
If that was true, they wouldn't defend the fallacy. When I point out that they are attacking a fallacy, they then defend the fallacy itself. In my experience.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your post makes no sense. Atheists do not "defend the fallacy". Once again, there are many reasonable Christians that do not believe the clear myths of the Bible. One does not have to reject reality to be a Christian. Most atheists have no problem with such Christians. It is those that insist the clear myths of the Bible are true that they tend to have a problem with. For them the Bible is a tool that can be used against them.
If I am not mistaken you do believe a fair portion of the myths of the Bible. For example Genesis and Exodus, am I right?
Yes they do. Not in the sense of they defend its validity. For example, they will defend the rapture doctrine as a Biblical doctrine, when in fact it is not.
Get me?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, they may tease those that have that belief but in no way do they defend that. Where did you get that crazy idea from? Please link some examples.
No, you are mistaken — Dr. Seon Hong, the scientist in charge of the study, believes “life came from the sea.”
Those dimensions are not the issue...it’s the length to width to height ratios, that are ideal.
“Moses didn’t write anything”....how do you know? Were you there? If you weren’t...then why are you calling the Jews, liars?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A fake expert is no expert.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@Hockeycowboy, why did you abuse the rating system? The fact is that "Dr." Seon Hong is not an expert. I went to Google Scholar and searched his name and the only article that came up for him was the fake one that Answers in Genesis paid for. And as you know to even work for Answers in Genesis one must swear not to follow the scientific method.
The Bible is NOT a historical novel!