A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm sorry, I wasn't attempting to say creationism can't be proven wrong -- that really wasn't my intent, so that's probably why we had the small disconnect.

I will ask you directly: do you think there could exist some conceivable evidence that would falsify the idea that the universe was specially created? If yes, then please describe this conceivable evidence you believe could exist.

You're not understanding me...what I am saying is that people who assume something is "wrong" without fully considering the evidence, or even looking for it, are evidently proven "idiotic".

1.) Who are these people?

2.) How do you know when the evidence is "fully considered"?

3.) At what point can someone stop "assuming" an unfalsifiable idea is wrong and rather conclude that it is wrong?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You'd be right if the Bible presented itself as a science text-book.

The bible is just a book, it doesn't present itself as anything. It's the ignorant but faithful masses that present it in such a way.

This cannot be this complicated to understand.

If you're looking at it simplistically, then you're probably over-looking important details.

 

[chiza]

Here's a good example I will show you, an easy one. The command to love your neighbor undoubtedly could have been interpreted to mean the person of your same race, or even the person that pitches his tent next to yours.

Since the word "neighbor" isn't specific to any individual, nor to race of persons, we can conclude that he means every human no matter race, religion, creed, etc.

The thing about the Bible is that it is amazingly applicable to modern life (from a principle standpoint) with it appealing, not to changing science and human theories, but to human nature.

You guys are missing that simple fact, and making the issue more complicated.

Sure, you can misapply scripture just as you can misuse a gun -- the point remains, its not a science, so the comparison is mind-shrinkingly asinine.

Let me get this straight. Now you are distancing yourself and saying the bible is not a science, when it's clear in the previous page you were amazed how it can be "refined," just like science:

"You are clueless. The same refinements in science is with honest Bible readers. For instance, the passage you idiotically quoted as Jesus promoting violence because he said "I will bring not peace but a sword", examining the surrounding contents would leave readers to believe how his teachings would be divisive, not that his intent is to bring harm to people.

There was a time when people thought he meant violence. That's a refinement, and thus, updated understanding."

 

[sandorski]

You'd be right if the Bible presented itself as a science text-book.

This cannot be this complicated to understand.

Why do You use it as a Science Textbook?

 

[zinfamous]

How did this updated understanding come about? People just read the same passages over and over again and one day "decided" they meant something different? How can they do that with no new information? It seems more likely that it was the people themselves who changed. Their own sense of morality became more refined than what was in the bible simply by living in the enlightened age we find ourselves in, but they couldn't let go of the ideal of Jesus being the ultimate benchmark for morality.

It would simply not be acceptable for the zeitgeist to have moved so far beyond him as to make him start looking like the bronze age primitive that had to have been. It would be easy enough for a religious person who desperately needs to believe in the divine goodness of Jesus to convince themselves that "that wasn't what he really meant". That's why the thing that you are calling a "refinement" is really just a sign of how far we've come morally since Jesus' time, and has almost nothing to do with what may or may not have originally been intended by that passage. No new information has been unearthed to change the meaning of the passage. The only variable is the people who interpreted it and their steady progression toward a superior secular morality.

aye