(January 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't see why it is confusing to you all that a book largely containing God's interaction with men might contain miracles. If God does something, it is not a result of a natural process: therefore supernatural, and that is the definition of a miracle.

Might not some isolated tribes upon first encountering the modern world have made the same assumption? "Their fire comes from little boxes, they fly in boxes and they have wondrous medicines which can cure anything. Everything they do is supernatural!"

Perhaps the ways of a god are natural from its point of view. To a god, it might be quite comprehensible why we would think everything It did was supernatural, even though it knows better. All we can do, at least until the carcass of some god washes up on the beach, is admit we don't know how they do what they do if they exist and if they do anything at all.

(January 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: I am not going to debate on evolution because it does not matter to the question of the existence of God.

Kudos, to you sir. Kudos I say!

(January 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: The OT is useful to teach us about God. In spite of your mocking, Augustine has the right attitude when looking at the OT. Standing too firm on a scientific or historical position that does not "prejudice the faith" runs the risk of "falling with it" when it is proved otherwise. Standing too firmly on an issue also leads to a fear of being wrong--which is not the right approach. We should embrace the search for the truth.

(My bolding.)

Perhaps you would like to join me in embracing whatever the truth shall bring? The tenets of whateverism are straightforward and incapable of conflict since there is only one. We look for, acknowledge and abide in the truth that we find as we find it, but only until a more comprehensive formulation of the truth is found.

(January 27, 2015 at 5:48 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Are you just going to keep stumbling from bald assertion to bald assertion without even responding to the points that we bring up? There's a rule about this being a discussion too, you know.

Also, there are chimpanzee fossils.

Actually, there aren't. Chimps live in forests with acidic soils that don't lend themselves to fossilization. Between 4 and 7 million years there are few hominid fossils, mostly a few teeth toward the younger end of the scale Where hominids branched off from common ancestors of chimps, great apes and hominids is also absent.

(January 27, 2015 at 9:07 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:

(January 27, 2015 at 5:48 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Are you just going to keep stumbling from bald assertion to bald assertion without even responding to the points that we bring up? There's a rule about this being a discussion too, you know.

Also, there are chimpanzee fossils.

Actually, there aren't. Chimps live in forests with acidic soils that don't lend themselves to fossilization. Between 4 and 7 million years there are few hominid fossils, mostly a few teeth toward the younger end of the scale Where hominids branched off from common ancestors of chimps, great apes and hominids is also absent.

You know you shouldn't say stuff like that in front of the simpletons, they're most likely to jump on it and be like "Therefore, evolution isn't true."

You'll have to tell that to the folks who found fossilized chimp remains Charlie. Was kind of a big deal for them - and not the least of which for the reasons you mentioned.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...04008.html

(January 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yeah, because no scientist ever wants to become world famous by overturning a major scientific theory.

Winning the Nobel for biology, and the prize money and the recognition that goes along with it must really suck.

To say nothing of the adulation of literally billions of religious people who would see it as a major blow in an ideological battle for the souls of humanity. The surge in popularity would dwarf the other rewards.

Imagine all of the guilt ridden catholic strange that would throw itself at you.

(January 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You'll have to tell that to the folks who found fossilized chimp remains Charlie. Was kind of a big deal for them - and not the least of which for the reasons you mentioned.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...04008.html

A $100 subscription to Nature has paid off immensely with articles like this.

(January 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You'll have to tell that to the folks who found fossilized chimp remains Charlie. Was kind of a big deal for them - and not the least of which for the reasons you mentioned.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v43...04008.html

I stand corrected. Science marches on. But still no fossil Adam or Eve.

So what you are saying Steve is that we should accept the bible as magically true.

Why should we do that? At best, the bible tells us what people believed happened. And there's a huge difference between what someone believes and what is true.

What makes the bible magically true but not other books?

You've ignored all my questions up to this point, but I'll try this last time.

And for allahs sake, learn about evolution people. I'm so fed up with hearing people think they can pick it apart with a pair of chopsticks when they clearly haven't the slightest clue about it. I recommend starting with talkorigins.org. If you can't be bothered to at least properly check that out, further posts about evolution just waste everyone's time. It's like us telling you the bible is made of cheese. Would you like that?

(January 27, 2015 at 6:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't see why it is confusing to you all that a book largely containing God's interaction with men might contain miracles. If God does something, it is not a result of a natural process: therefore supernatural, and that is the definition of a miracle.

So far I have heard creation. There is a huge body of discussion on whether Gen 1 is literal or not.
The OT is useful to teach us about God. In spite of your mocking,

Baloney! Genesis contradicts itself badly. Ir cannot be true. You cannot whiffle that away by trying to tell us maybe it doesn't mean what it obviously says. Faced with the fact there is no truth there, quibbling doesn't do the job.

As I pointed out, the very concept of God is self defeating. Does God create the logic, the rules, the laws of the Universe? If so the Biblical perfectly good loving God can eliminate moral evil. And no claims there are unknown reasons God must accept moral evil work with a God that creates the laws and rules of the Universe. These sorts of problems demonstrate the very concept of the nature of God found in the Bible show that conceptual God is impossible. And we get the mythology that paints God as a savage, cruel, incompetent being.

The Bible has nothing to teach us about God.