Register User Options	Site: Vanderbilt -------- Alabama Arkansas Auburn BB Recruiting Florida FB Recruiting Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Northwestern Ole Miss SEBaseball South Carolina Texas A&M Tennessee TnVarsity.com Georgia Forum: Coffee Shop -------- Commodore War Room Premium Recruiting Board General Sports Forum Tailgate and ticket forum

Views: 786, Replies: 64

Thread Tools     Rate Thread     Display Options

---

Originally posted by NewYorkDore:
The Bible is proof of the Bible is just not good enough for me. Others feel differently, but I always find it remarkable that some believers are so skeptical of the science boogeyman and yet are flowing with credulity when it comes to biblical myth.

A few particular points:

a) is the talking snake not in Genesis? Is that not an account of the Lord rather than a testament of a disciple? As such, if the Lord says that a snake talked, then that snake talked. If a gospel says that Jesus' cross spoke, then OK maybe that's ventriloquism. In any respect, if someone thinks every animal in the world sang cumbaya on a boat for a month or so, I don't imagine they'd have a problem with snakes talking.

b) Actually, physics has established that something can come from nothing. One example of this are virtual particles that were theorized by Paul Dirac early in the 20th century. They have been studied and indirectly observed. Quite simply, they are evidence that something can and does emerge from nothing.

c) I don't know how life formed for the first time. Nor does anyone else. I highly doubt any scientist will ever be able to prove how life actually arose, though it is possible (but not yet accomplished) to establish a manner in which it might have arisen (there were actually two quite big steps in that direction in the last month as MIT and NASA scientists announced minor breakthroughs on cell membrane and sugar formation, respectively). Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean you jump right to "god did it."

d) On whether people who rely on science consider themselves smart know-it-alls, I'd actually argue the opposite. It is biblical literalists who accept the collective wisdom of a nomadic, bronze age culture as ultimate fact who claim to know everything. The entire premise of science is that there are questions that we don't know the answer to and we try to find out what they are. Furthermore, that which we think we know is constantly questioned and tested, particularly when new data becomes available.

e) I'm not trying to make you look stupid any more than you are me. In fact, we're expressing collective shock at each other's position. While some may not like the fact that blind faith gets questioned, it is my firm opinion that belief in biblical literalism is, to any reasonable thinking person, quite preposterous. Your opinion clearly is a bit different.

f) As to your questioning of carbon dating and the other means of radioactive dating, I would question your sources. While it is most certainly true that not all dating methods are accurate for all subject matters, it is entirely accurate to say that "carbon dating" (the commonly use lay term to describe all radioactive dating) as a family of processes is a highly effective tool with entirely acceptable margins for error. It's also a set of methods that has gone through the ringer. I'll trust scientific literature on that over Answers in Genesis.

---

This post was edited on 2/1 12:45 PM by force10jc



Posted on 2/1 12:42 PM | IP: Logged

Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Back to Threads