GOD IS NOT DEAD

[The Valkyrie]

True science doesn't conflict with the Bible. It is the scientists who are hellbent on trying to disprove God by creating more than Science has ever discovered. Apparently, this board is chock full of people who do just that.

So what's your position on Genesis? Are you a literalist, or is that all metaphorical? 'Cause the latter position is the only one you can take to keep your first sentence even remotely true.

Oh, this should be good . . . "good" being a relative term.

Science has disporved many of the claims in the bible, Rev.

You defining something as "true" science doesn't make it any more real.

[*Deidre*]

Science isn't interested in disproving God anymore than it's interested in disproving Santa Claus. Believe it or not, Revelation...it's ("God") a non-issue to science. God is an invention of mankind, like the steam boat. But, at least a steamboat is real and useful.

[Brian37]

it reminds me of that other cliche - there are no atheists in foxholes.

That one bugs me to no end.

-- former foxhole resident

This one bugs me too, and I failed out of Air Force basic. I was too young and to damned emotional to not take their constant yelling personally. And looking back at it now, I am glad I failed because I would have gotten someone killed.

But especially with the military, I hate this attitude that if you don't serve you are a chicken shit. If someone is on the battlefield why the hell would they want someone next to them that would freeze at a critical moment?

With assholes like Ted Buttnugget , for me it would not be the honesty of "I wouldn't be able to handle it". It is the fact they pretend that they did not dodge at all, then act brave and wave their banner of war knowing they were not honest enough to admit they couldn't do it.

Ted's pretending to be a bad ass is my problem. I will never pretend I could get shot at and not suffer emotional trauma. I'd be the first to say "You don't want me out there, I would get someone killed".

But besides that, it is utter bullshit that an atheist cannot serve. While I couldn't do it I have known plenty who have. One guy I knew, who has since passed away Served in Europe during WW2. Went in an atheist and came out an atheist and died an atheist at a ripe old age.

[SteelCurtain]

The original post was to suggest to people to go see the movie, not to debate it. In actuality, it would be nice if someone took up my offer and saw if for free and then debated some points - reading reviews do not count for me. Unfortunately, where you live you can't view it. However, if you lived her in the USA I bet you would of taken my offer.

Wait... does it only count if you paid for it? I have seen it. (I didn't pay for it...) I told you this. Others have seen it, too. So are you willing to debate 'some points' with me?

Secondly, I don't mean to just give one sentence replies but there have been a lot of posts to respond to. I also work and have a wife and child to attend to. I would like to post some arguments after this Sunday to get some real good discussion going.

Please, please, please. It would be MUCH better if you chose quality over quantity. Don't respond to everyone. Engage someone. If only one person, it would be better than what you've been doing.

---

True science doesn't conflict with the Bible. It is the scientists who are hellbent on trying to disprove God by creating more than Science has ever discovered. Apparently, this board is chock full of people who do just that.

Are you honestly saying that science can only be true if it doesn't conflict with the Bible? Do you realize the dishonesty in that statement? The presuppositionalism in that notion is astounding. Most scientists have no stake in the god argument. Just because sometimes people empirically challenge your preconceived notions doesn't mean they are 'creating more than science has ever discovered.' Question: can you give an example of a peer reviewed scientist publishing something he created that hasn't been discovered?

[Tonus]

Interesting how some take some Bible truth and then add things the text never said while uglify it with errant and critical opinions.

Those people would be called "Christians."

[Revelation777]

So what's your position on Genesis? Are you a literalist, or is that all metaphorical? 'Cause the latter position is the only one you can take to keep your first sentence even remotely true.

Oh, this should be good . . . "good" being a relative term.

Science has disporved many of the claims in the bible, Rev.

You defining something as "true" science doesn't make it any more real.

Science is in harmony with the Scriptures

[Jackalope]

Science is in harmony with the Scriptures

...except where it isn't.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Oh, this should be good . . . "good" being a relative term.

Science has disporved many of the claims in the bible, Rev.

You defining something as "true" science doesn't make it any more real.

Science is in harmony with the Scriptures

Science and scripture are incompatible with each other.

Scripture makes tremendous claims without evidence and demands faith in its veracity. Science puts forth theories and explanations after extensive demonstrative testing.

There is no harmony between the two.

PS: Note that I did NOT say science and RELIGION are incompatible, just science and scripture (specifically the Bible).

[Revelation777]

Science is in harmony with the Scriptures

Science and scripture are incompatible with each other.

Scripture makes tremendous claims without evidence and demands faith in its veracity. Science puts forth theories and explanations after extensive demonstrative testing.

There is no harmony between the two.

PS: Note that I did NOT say science and RELIGION are incompatible, just science and scripture (specifically the Bible).

Then give me an example of one

[Bob Kelso]

Science is in harmony with the Scriptures

No. Just flat out no.

Scientific errors in the bible.