Actually I think you have that reversed, Brian.  They are leaning on science to support their stupid fucking bible.

Big difference.  And while I agree that it is a step forward from the morons who insist that their bullshit is literally true it still leaves them with a way to go.

But does any of it matter.  As I recall, "jesus" spent precious little time talking about evolution and a lot of time talking about helping the poor.  Modern xhristards seem to have that reversed, too.

(October 18, 2018 at 3:29 am)android17ak47 Wrote: Bro, why rebut a fellow atheist when I am depicting this accurately with the exception that I was wrong about the 24hr period for living creatures, but it was a 48 hour period. The men of god in the bible describe a close to 6300 year period from the creation till now, and we know evolution would not having taken place. Evolution dictates that the origin of species link back to possibly a simple celled organism that resulted in mulpiplication of others, then evolution had taken place over the years as more living organisms multiplied and had to adapt to alien environments, and you know how it goes from there. The genesis story depicts SEVERAL "KINDS" of creatures being created all at once, not what evolution would dictate and predict to happen. The genesis story completely contradicts this scientific theory. THATS FACT BRO!!! 

I think you're reading this from the perspective of how you were taught as IFB... and by the way, I'm really sorry you had to grow up in that culture. That is an absolutely terrible sect of Christianity and I wouldn't begrudge you for being pissed off at religion in general if that's how you feel.

Anyway, IFB takes a literalist approach and they whitewash inconsistencies. They both believe that the bible should be read literally in the manner they happen to interpret while also ignoring the inconsistencies that pop up as a result of their interpretation. Rather than just step back and read the words that are on the page, they dictate to the deity they love so much what he must have meant.

The definition of a 24 hour day as we know it isn't supplied until day 4. The bible describes a day as being a period of time going from darkness to lightness. While the common definition of "day" as we know it today is a 24 hour period, that is not the definition that is given in the bible.

Actually, that's another thing that primitive goat herders couldn't get right, either.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-solstice/

Quote:Hints of inconsistent Earthly timekeeping come through natural calendars preserved in fossils. Corals, for example, go through daily and seasonal growing cycles that form bands akin to growth rings in trees; counting them shows how many days passed in a year. In the early Carboniferous period some 350 million years ago an Earth year was around 385 days, ancient corals indicate, meaning not that it took longer for the planet to revolve around the sun, but that a day–night cycle was less than 23 hours long.

Sedimentary rocks such as sandstone also testify to the quicker days of yore. As moon-spawned tides wash over rocks they deposit mineral specks, layer upon layer. In southern Australia, for example, these vertically accumulating tidal "rhythmites" have pegged an Earth day at 21.9 hours some 620 million years ago. This equates to a 400-day year, although other estimates suggest even brisker daily rotations then.

But, hell.  Can't expect a "god" to know that can you?

(October 17, 2018 at 8:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Which is better:

1. A theist embraces science and incorrectly claims it fits with his religion.

2. A theist embraces ignorance, correctly citing science as incompatible with his religion.

I'll go with #1 every time.

It is not really possible to embrace science and still be a theist.  It is only possible to use science and still be a theist.

A theist who uses science is still embracing ignorance.   He may admit the grounds suitable for ignorance to claim unchallenged dominion is smaller than what a theists who don’t use science may wish, but he is conceding peripheral grounds only with an eye towards strengthening ignorance’s dominion over the remaining core grounds. He is a theist who is trying to make lemonade out of the rotten moldy lemon that remains the core of his belief.

Such a theist is trying to defend a few aspects of ignorance well rather than all aspects of ignorance poorly, unlike the theist who rejects science all together.    He is a wiser, but not a lesser, fool than the other theist.

Quote:It is not really possible to embrace science and still be a theist.

Albertus Magnus

William Turner

Euclid

Francis Bacon

Galileo

Pascal

Robert Boyle

Newton

Kepler

Swedenborg

Euler

Priestly

Volta

Dalton

Cuvier

Faraday

Babbage

ALL of these people embraced science and were devoutly religious (the above list is necessarily incomplete). 

And on and on and on. 

Boru

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

(October 18, 2018 at 3:53 pm)wyzas Wrote: Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

Charles Babbage says, 'You're welcome.' 

Boru

(October 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm)android17ak47 Wrote:

(October 17, 2018 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I think this is the equivalent of believers coming here and telling us what atheism means.  I don't think we get to tell them what they're supposed to believe.  Obviously if they thought about it the way you or I do, they wouldn't be believers.

Personally I find it hopeful if believers can find a way to accept the evidence of their senses and science where that contradicts the bible.  I even know a few who admit they're agnostic but choose to believe what can't be justified anyway.  Frankly I respect this sort so much more than the ones who act all smug and condescending.

I know as a former believer of dogma how stubborn one can be but I posted that comment because believers need to be reminded why they believe in this particular version of god in the first place.

To assume such a one-size-fits-all explanation really does capture each and every believer is the kind of reductionist thinking we associate with believers of a dogma. Having thrown off the old dogma, you might want to be alert not to look for a substitute that has the same feel as the old dogma.

The truth is we're all human, imperfect and variable. We start out measuring others by our own experience but eventually we have to acknowledge some just don't fit the same mold.

They also thought that "god" sent disease as punishment.  They may have been smart for their times but today they'd be pushing a broom at WalMart.

(October 18, 2018 at 12:18 pm)Aliza Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 3:29 am)android17ak47 Wrote: Bro, why rebut a fellow atheist when I am depicting this accurately with the exception that I was wrong about the 24hr period for living creatures, but it was a 48 hour period. The men of god in the bible describe a close to 6300 year period from the creation till now, and we know evolution would not having taken place. Evolution dictates that the origin of species link back to possibly a simple celled organism that resulted in mulpiplication of others, then evolution had taken place over the years as more living organisms multiplied and had to adapt to alien environments, and you know how it goes from there. The genesis story depicts SEVERAL "KINDS" of creatures being created all at once, not what evolution would dictate and predict to happen. The genesis story completely contradicts this scientific theory. THATS FACT BRO!!! 

I think you're reading this from the perspective of how you were taught as IFB... and by the way, I'm really sorry you had to grow up in that culture. That is an absolutely terrible sect of Christianity and I wouldn't begrudge you for being pissed off at religion in general if that's how you feel.

Anyway, IFB takes a literalist approach and they whitewash inconsistencies. They both believe that the bible should be read literally in the manner they happen to interpret while also ignoring the inconsistencies that pop up as a result of their interpretation. Rather than just step back and read the words that are on the page, they dictate to the deity they love so much what he must have meant.

The definition of a 24 hour day as we know it isn't supplied until day 4. The bible describes a day as being a period of time going from darkness to lightness. While the common definition of "day" as we know it today is a 24 hour period, that is not the definition that is given in the bible.

Not true, you need to reread genesis 1. The writer kept saying "and the evening and the morning were the next(says day 2-7)  day. There is  no reasonable open interpretation for this. This is describing the day ending having turned into evening, and the morning being the next day. These creation claims between each reference to the day ending and the next day beginning are litteral descriptions of 24hour earthly periods, this creation having being the earth.

---

(October 18, 2018 at 10:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Bro, why rebut a fellow atheist when I am depicting this accurately with the exception that I was wrong about the 24hr period for living creatures, but it was a 48 hour period. The men of god in the bible describe a close to 6300 year period from the creation till now, and we know evolution would not having taken place. Evolution dictates that the origin of species link back to possibly a simple celled organism that resulted in mulpiplication of others, then evolution had taken place over the years as more living organisms multiplied and had to adapt to alien environments, and you know how it goes from there. The genesis story depicts SEVERAL "KINDS" of creatures being created all at once, not what evolution would dictate and predict to happen. The genesis story completely contradicts this scientific theory. THATS FACT BRO!!! 

Please don't presume to lecture me about biological evolution.

My only issue with your stance is that you seem to want people to reject faith completely in order to accept that evolution occurs.  I'd like that as well, but I live in this place called 'the real world'. I much prefer people who accept the fact of evolution on the basis of faith than people who reject it outright.  The former are less likely to incompetently home-school their children, less likely to push for the idiocy of creation 'science' to be taught in schools, and - most importantly - FAR less likely to lean on their legislators to pass laws restricting freedom of speech and inquiry.

Does the Genesis narrative work as a science primer?  Absolutely not - it is a cultural myth, no more to be respected than the creation myths of any other society.  But if people who are allowed to vote can lean on their faith in the Bible as a way to support sound science, I'm good with that.

Boru

Im sorry bro, it just appeared you were defending the apologists and misrepresenting what litteral claims were in genesis. If I misunderstood you I apologize.