Daystar

[Kyuuketsuki]

I was going to post this in another thread but somehow it seemed more appropriate to post it here.

You know Daystar ... the more I read your stuff the more convinced I am you're just another fundy Christian with a semi-literalistic style belief in your bible (and let's be honest here, none of them actually are truly literal in their belief) and you're just boxing clever.

Kyu

[Daystar]

I was going to post this in another thread but somehow it seemed more appropriate to post it here.

You know Daystar ... the more I read your stuff the more convinced I am you're just another fundy Christian with a semi-literalistic style belief in your bible (and let's be honest here, none of them actually are truly literal in their belief) and you're just boxing clever.

Kyu

Well, you #@$%ing @#$%&!

I am no fundy Xian. The literalistic style remark. I take the Bible literally when it is literal and otherwise when that is appropriate. Not out of convenience. It would be a great deal easier for me to take the account of Adam and the flood as figurative, but that isn't how it was meant.

Atheist are similar to their approach as Xians. They read it without much consideration and then form their beliefs. It is very difficult to show an athiest what the Bible actually is saying and how to come to a more scholarly evaluation, because they have those beliefs formulated.

The six creative periods (Hebrew word yohm translated into day) for example. They won't buy it. They won't 'investigate the evidence' like you think they would and should do.

I know when to take the Bible literal and when not to. As in metaphorical, allegorical, figurative and symbolic.

I am not familiar with the term 'boxing clever' but I think I know what you mean. I have been doing this a long time and I think I am naturally good at application of logic and most important of all. I actually listen to what people say and thus know how they think. These are helpful in debate.

Edit Postscript: I haven't talked as much about the Bible here as I normally would, or as much as I will here in the not so distant future. Right now I am concentrating on seeing things from your perspective. Understanding where you come from.

[Edwardo Piet]

It doesn't matter what the bible says. A book alone is not proof of a supernatural God. Its not a magic book.
There's no evidence in there.

[Daystar]

It doesn't matter what the bible says. A book alone is not proof of a supernatural God. Its not a magic book.
There's no evidence in there.

I am aware of your position on the matter, EvF, but the Bible is a remarkable testimony. A reliable witness. I think of it as more similar to a court of law than science.

And once again I remind you that science is subject to interpretation, speculation, faulty logic etc. Oh, I know all about peer review and Scientific method being observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled, but at the end of the day if that all don't add up the way you want it to you just have to wing it.

The whole process is not all that impressive to me in the sense that it is to you. To me its just the way one looks at things, to you its a quasi religious golden rule you overestimate the potential of.

[leo-rcc]

Oh, I know all about peer review and Scientific method being observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled, but at the end of the day if that all don't add up the way you want it to you just have to wing it.

That is dead wrong. If the numbers don't add up, the theory is dropped like a hot potato. The peer review is not done by people who agree with your hypothesis but by those that are sceptic on your findings.

[Edwardo Piet]

Science is extremely precise unless you're talking about intelligent design or something
Science is very very careful and inquisitive. You get points in science for proving your colleges wrong. And you go about trying to prove yourself wrong too
You question yourself. And you question science. There is no winging it. Science actually progresses.

[Purple Rabbit]

I am aware of your position on the matter, EvF, but the Bible is a remarkable testimony. A reliable witness. I think of it as more similar to a court of law than science.

We need some evidence to this wild assertion.

The bible being an untrue account starts on the first page (from King James version):

" 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. "

So there can't be any doubt about it, according to this account the firmament was created AFTER the earth was created. Earth and firmament are treated here like separate domains with their own independent rules. Note that this in accordance with the Aristotelan view that prevailed in the early days of scripture. This however is in flagrant contradiction with all empirical evidence since the beginning of science gathered about the place of earth in the universe and the origin of earth. That evidence equivocally shows that earth is a place in a very big chunk of space and that the latter as seen from the earth only seems as a separate domain called 'the firmament'. Newton (according to anecdote thereby helped by a falling apple) demonstrated quite spectaculary that the heavenly bodies follow the same rules as earthbound objects and called these rules gravity. Later scientific evidence showed that space itself has formed some 13.7 billion years ago and that a prerequisite for earth to exist is space. This means that earth cannot have existed prior to space, the universe itself and that the above biblical account is nothing more than a fabel that fits prescientific views but grossly contradicts the facts as plain as they come.

To ascribe reliability to the bible in the face of this enormous error on it's first page is like defending flat earth theory on board of a space shuttle.

[LukeMC]

This however is in flagrant contradiction with all empirical evidence since the beginning of science gathered about the place of earth in the universe and the origin of earth. That evidence equivocally shows that earth is a place in a very big chunk of space and that the latter as seen from the earth only seems as a separate domain called 'the firmament'. Newton (according to anecdote thereby helped by a falling apple) demonstrated quite spectaculary that the heavenly bodies follow the same rules as earthbound objects and called these rules gravity. Later scientific evidence showed that space itself has formed some 13.7 billion years ago and that a prerequisite for earth to exist is space. This means that earth cannot have existed prior to space, the universe itself and that the above biblical account is nothing more than a fabel that fits prescientific views but grossly contradicts the facts as plain as they come.

To ascribe reliability to the bible in the face of this enormous error on it's first page is like defending flat earth theory on board of a space shuttle.

You ought to back this up with some evidence, otherwise Daystar will see no reason to believe you. You talk about real studies and real evidence, but unless you show him the evidence instead of talking about it, he will most likely dismiss your claims.

[Purple Rabbit]

You ought to back this up with some evidence, otherwise Daystar will see no reason to believe you. You talk about real studies and real evidence, but unless you show him the evidence instead of talking about it, he will most likely dismiss your claims.

Well, he can talk about dismissal of course, that is anticipated. But he can't show me any evidence of his dismissal if words constitute no evidence whatsoever.

[LukeMC]

That evidence equivocally shows that

Later scientific evidence showed that

You talk about there being evidence out there which proves your point, but you haven't presented any of this actual evidence, that's all I'm saying. And in that respect, I understand Daystar's position in most debates.
However, posting links as reference won't help as Daystar doesn't follow links, and an in-depth summary of the experiments which lead to the discoveries would be a waste of your effort. Maybe we should start filling up the science section with some actual information, explanations, experiments, etc. Maybe Daystar would be more tempted to click the link if he knew it was to a thread on these boards posted by us religious atheists =/