For those who believe the god of abraham was behind the big bang or evolution

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

When I was in the Navy I couldn't put "none" in the "Religion" box. I wonder how many people on your list were in the same position.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

When I was in the Navy I couldn't put "none" in the "Religion" box. I wonder how many people on your list were in the same position.

For the ones I was able to research, their religion seemed to be part and parcel of them, not merely a label.  Faraday, for instance, was deacon and elder of his church, and refused a knighthood on religious grounds. Pascal wrote in favour of religion frequently (he was part of a Catholic splinter group whose name escapes me).  Babbage was a vociferous defender of divine revelation, miracles, and the argument from design.  And so on.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, but what have they done for us lately?

Splitters!

Boru

[SteveII]

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.

This is amusing. You are actually arguing for a literal interpretation so you can dismiss it as scientifically inaccurate. So basically:

1. A literal reading of Gen 1-3 is correct
2. It can't be literal
3. Therefore the other 1200 chapters in the Bible are wrong.

Setting aside that the conclusion (more fully outlined in your OP) does not follow at all from the premises, tell me, who wrote the first three chapters of Genesis and when did they write it? If you are so sure (which you seem to be) of (1) you would of course know this.

[android17ak47]

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.

This is amusing. You are actually arguing for a literal interpretation so you can dismiss it as scientifically inaccurate. So basically:

1. A literal reading of Gen 1-3 is correct
2. It can't be literal
3. Therefore the other 1200 chapters in the Bible are wrong.

Setting aside that the conclusion (more fully outlined in your OP) does not follow at all from the premises, tell me, who wrote the first three chapters of Genesis and when did they write it? If you are so sure (which you seem to be) of (1) you would of course know this.

Whenever I hear somebody tell me to not take something litterally from the bible, what message I get from such comment is that I shouldnt take the bible seriously period, and the only reason people even believe in this version of god is because people claim to have visions of this god, and claim these are the things that this spiritual entity tells them is true. If nothing they say is to be taken litterally, then Im to assume I shouldnt take thier vision claims seriously as well, and that leaves us with no literal god of abraham. come on now.

I believe theres a reason why these men of this god say they had visions, and not physical appearences from these entities, and thats because they dont know how to describe an experience that is not of the norm, and since I am familiar with what it is like to hallucenate, I can easily see why they would say "visions" rather than a common experience. Its just funny how so few people throughout history claim visions of entities of different religious spiritual characters, and most of the rest of us do not. Its common for any living creature including humans to have the mental health condition/disorder known as skitsophrania. I have 2 friends with this disorder and they off and on tell me of thier visions and ne of them never acknowledges that these visions are imaginary. 

In a time where this condition was unknown of, I can see how a multitude of people would people a single indivudual when superstition is common in the culture, and the rest would believe the indiviidual especially if he already has respect as a religious leader, and well after the individual's death his story gets passed down generation after generation and eventually written down in a story book or scripture as tho he really had these experiences. 

Theres good reason why with each religion who depends on people's visions, why only rare individuals have this gift and are the only ones who thier god's tend to have ever shown his face to, and thats because they suffered from these hallucenatins, whereelse the rest of us dont. These gods that anybody throughout history claim to have ever seen were in retrospect imaginary, and this is why no particular version of god has ever shown his face to everyone around the world to declare his existance and tell us what to believe and how t live and whats to look forward to after death. Its never been recorded in history to have ever  happened, and the reason is there is no god in existance that ever cared for whats going on on earth, and imo theres no god out there anyways. Its a natural world that depends on cause and effect for anything to happen and never reuired the assistance of any supernatural all powerful entity to make anything happen.

[Minimalist]

Stevie is famous for wanting things both ways.  Ignore him.

[possibletarian]

Christian's are allowed to read the Genesis story as they wish, including as a story or myth.

What I find strange is when they claim inerrancy, it's usually the bits they want to be taken with absolute authority, which of course can change with denomination's.

Its better to ask about the claims they do make, not the ones they don't.

[Drich]

This is something I posted today on youtube videos where Christians have defended creationism but attributes evolution to his creation, as well as the big bang. Religious folks have no business using receant discoveries that contradict the claims in genesis. Either you trust what the prophets and patriarchs said about god having revealed to them, or dont trust them at all which means you have noone to trust from ancient days who claimed he exists and told them so. If you cant trust everything these people in the bible said, then you cant say the god that told them these things even exists because you rely on thier word that the god of the hebrews exists, and exists alone as a god and no other.

Here's my comment I left on the videos. How can you honestly argue with this? If you can, ide love to hear your reply.

"sorry but no, the god of the hebrews cannot recant the genesis account.

The fact of the matter is that the men in ancient days who want the rest of us to believe in the version of the god they alone spoke to, say this imaginary proprietary god for the jews told them it happened that way as depicted in genesis. if any other religion who's god claimed creationism were to say it happened any other way, christians muslims and jews would jump all over thier case to say that thier errors inscripture proves thier god doesnt exist or else thier prophets wouldnt make errors in judgement when providing fallible details about creation.

You dont get to recant what was said in genesis. People depend on the people in old days who had visions of this god to know if this god exists or not, and look at what they say this god whispered in  thier ears alone. this god that only the jews knew about and worshipped is a false one and the scriptures written prove this god never existed and told anybody anything. it was dellusional human beings hallucenating this shit up, and as smart as we think we are in the 21st century, we are still gullible enough as a species to accept superstition, and it seems the jewish brand of superstition rules the world.

If in the future a new religion arises and with a new version of god who gets credit for creation, and attributes evolution and big bang to the creation, then a few hundred years go by and the religion grows expedentially, humans will favor this religion because the believers will convince others of this god because of the accuracy of this god's creation story, and the followers will assume this god had actually been around longer than when the religion was created on record, and the religion's who's scriptures include the jhebrew god will die off in favor of the one who's god did it the way nature seems to have done it.

its the a, b, c's of creating a religion. You attribute your claims of this god's creation to common knowledge of the time. Just like everybody back in the days genesis was wrote believed the earth was flat, you get books like job that will say the earth was shaped like a clay under a seal, which is flat and circular, and that god will shake his enemies off of it, which was believed back in the day that people could fall off the flat earth's edges, and that the earth stands on pillars. This was "common knowledge" back in those days everywhere, so the jews gave thier god credit for this style of an earth's creation. now we know this was a lie, just like the cosmos and all living creatures were created within 6 24hour periods. The god of the hebrews never existed, and the shit the people who validated his existence show it by what they said god told them about creation. They made him up and pretended he talked these things to them."

what a poor closed minded view of the little world you think you live in..

So genesis 1:1 through genesis 2:3 gives a 7 day account of creation including a rest.

1 starts out "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was without form and empty..." there is no time line here sport.. Again NO TIME LINE for the creation of the cosmos. did you notice that? it simply says in the beginning God did X and Y and X and Y so happen to repersent everything outside of this atmosphere, and God did so without a time limit. could have been a month yeat or 100 bazillion years!!!

riddle me this.. did you world view get any bigger just now?

Day one. God created light.. not the sun, read it again God created light, from a planetary wide perspective the sky for the first time lit up think dreary over cast day where there is light but no idea where the sun is... then darkness again and that was considered to be a day.. 

But without the sun with and not being able to see the stars planet side... how can you assume that 24 hours had elapsed? the word does not say 24 hours had elapsed only one day had passed. could have been 20 hours or 23 hours or 24 and 1/2 hours or 24 days.. years... months... decades.... 24 millenia... we only have the light and the darkness to count the passing of a day,  and we do not know how long that time was. To God... it was one day. which we are told to us may seem like a 1000 years...

Checking the oil again.. has your little world gotten any bigger yet???

Next point of truth.. this day and darkness thing wasn't a one or two day deal... it wasn't till day 4 was complete that TIME was invented. meaning a way to count the days. Ie the sun moon and stars... so 24 hour period was impossible to gauge till this point in time.

From then in two days God need not make a finish product, only plant the seed or put evolution of what was called for in motion.. by placing one pool of slime in the right spot to become trees or grass or birds or people..

That said genesis 2:4 forward is a completely different story. Genesis 2 is the story that tell of Jesus' creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of eden that happened between day 3 and 4 of the Father's creation of the rest of the world... The garden/Created by Christ was a perfect picture of the world 6000 years ago when Adam and Eve was dispelled from the garden. meaning Adam was compatible with the evolution of humanity, plants and animals.. While in the garden Adam and eve were immortal per the tree of life and when they sinned they died.

hold on to something because you world where bible and science can not mix is about to be obliterated..

But all that said the important thing here again was there no time line between the end of genesis 2 the completion of the Garden and the beginning of genesis 3 which happened 6000 years ago which marked the exodus of the garden... which means the whole of your little evolutionary world could fit well with in the garden narrative without changing a blessed word of the bible, nor we not change anything in evolution except to replace natural and nature/selection with Hand of God.  

and boom, This is how genesis completely assimilates and consumes the whole of evolution without changing 1 blessed word of the bible. No time line between the end of gen 2 and the start of 3 means you can take as looooooooooooong as you'd like to say evolution took, with adam and eve fit snuggly in the garden waiting till that moment 6000 years ago whee boredom of living forever in a garden 2/3 of the US over took eve and she had to taste the one thing in that whole garden she never even touched! then count the genealogies forward to Christ and add about 2000 years to that and we come to now...

So.. check and mate sport.

[Minimalist]

could have been a month yeat or 100 bazillion years!!!

Take it up with these fucktards  You know, they think they are every bit as holy as you are!

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-cre...-is-a-day/

In this chapter, Ken Ham shows how reading the creation account in a straightforward way, applying the proper hermeneutic for interpreting historical narrative, and considering the other passages of Scripture on this subject will lead one to conclude that the word for “day” in the creation account is a 24-hour day.

Now, to be fair, I consider Ken Ham to be a world-class fucking idiot.  But then, dripshit, I think the same of you.