• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

I want someone to tear apart this website... (5 Viewers)

nevery

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
I'm a Christian.

The Bible tells us what happened. It doesn't tend to tell us (with the creation story at least) how it happened. God could have used evolution.

The Bible says God created the universe in 6 days. In other places in the Bible it hints that God is outside out concept of time, and a blink of an eye to God is like 1,000 years. That is where some get the 6,000 year creation from, but I think that the Bible is trying to be more general. I think the creation time period is not specified, rather the six days represent six stages of creation. And science supports this.

God could have used a big bang to help create the unvierse, who knows?

Science doesn't necessarily get rid of God. It's just different, and is looking at the same problem at a different angle using different means.
 

Riet

Tomcat Pilot
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
3,622
Location
Miramar, CA
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
I'm a Christian.

The Bible tells us what happened. It doesn't tend to tell us (with the creation story at least) how it happened. God could have used evolution.

The Bible says God created the universe in 6 days. In other places in the Bible it hints that God is outside out concept of time, and a blink of an eye to God is like 1,000 years. That is where some get the 6,000 year creation from, but I think that the Bible is trying to be more general. I think the creation time period is not specified, rather the six days represent six stages of creation. And science supports this.

God could have used a big bang to help create the unvierse, who knows?

Science doesn't necessarily get rid of God. It's just different, and is looking at the same problem at a different angle using different means.
god is in the gaps
 

Fish Tank

That guy
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
279
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Who is to say what is right and what is wrong with creation? All we know about the Big Bang is that it happened.*

I'm not saying the Bible is correct, but if one says that it is wrong they might as well say every explanation, including Dreaming and that, is wrong (and most likely they will).

The only way to say something is wrong is with evidence. Science will get that, I doubt the Bible will (maybe a symbolic explanation or something, I dunno).

*Edit: Holy shit now I remember Yr 11 Physics... oops.
 
Last edited:

you -nG-

New Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
18
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Who is to say what is right and what is wrong with creation? All we know about the Big Bang is that it happened.

I'm not saying the Bible is correct, but if one says that it is wrong they might as well say every explanation, including Dreaming and that, is wrong (and most likely they will).

The only way to say something is wrong is with evidence. Science will get that, I doubt the Bible will (maybe a symbolic explanation or something, I dunno).
You can say it's wrong without conclusive evidence, it just means other people will probably ignore you. People have their own beliefs (which is basically what you're saying) and more often then not they will stand up for those beliefs through loyalty to that belief, not because they have a reliable arguement...
 

nevery

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
The big bang is still a theory. We know a lot about the theory....but we don't know if it actually happened or not, so effectively we don't know much.
 

Scorch

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
564
Location
Marayong
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
The big bang is still a theory. We know a lot about the theory....but we don't know if it actually happened or not, so effectively we don't know much.
Yes, however we know so much about the natural world and history to ascertain that the veracity of the Bible is non-existent. The writers of both testaments are unaware of basic scientific realities, assert that the entirety of the human race was populated by two people in Mesapotamia, that the Jews escaped from Egypt, which never happened, and all kinds of other bullshit.

You cannot disprove God, as a concept, however there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that he exists, so it is not illogical to assert he doesn't. If there is no evidence to suggest something exists, it is an entirely logical assertion to say that it probably doesn't.

However we can absolutely disprove the Bible. To get to the point that the idea of God is not intellectually absurd and childish, you need to begin to deal with an entirely more vague and un-Biblical conception of God.

The Bible says God created the universe in 6 days. In other places in the Bible it hints that God is outside out concept of time, and a blink of an eye to God is like 1,000 years. That is where some get the 6,000 year creation from, but I think that the Bible is trying to be more general.
No, the Bible is extremely specific and not at all intended to be general. This is just an excuse made by modern Christians when they realise that the Biblical account doesn't hold a candle to the scientific understanding of the universe of a modern 13 year old.

I think the creation time period is not specified, rather the six days represent six stages of creation. And science supports this.
Science shows this is directly and entirely wrong.

Genesis asserts that there was 'light' ("night and day") before the Sun even came into existence. This is naturally impossible. The Bible also asserts that plants began to grow before there was sunlight and that every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat.

It also asserts that a fucking snake can talk, for goodness sake.

That is where some get the 6,000 year creation from
Not at all. This was derived from counting down the generations and ages described in the Bible of early humanity by historians and chronologists in the late dark ages.
 

Titburger

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
168
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
The big bang is still a theory. We know a lot about the theory....but we don't know if it actually happened or not, so effectively we don't know much.
'
Wow, do you have any idea how stupid this post is?

Evidence -

Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - relating to Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(theres heaps more but i cant be bothered)

Nothing infuriates me more than when noobs say that it's 'just a theory'. You do not know what you are talking about.
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
The big bang is still a theory. We know a lot about the theory....but we don't know if it actually happened or not, so effectively we don't know much.
And here I was thinking you might be an intelligent person due to your anti-censorship stance. Shame.
 

Geoffo11

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
61
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
(Rambling)
There's always a nice way of saying you don't believe in something. You should disagree in a way that doesn't make you look like a total jackass, unless that's what you're going for.



Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
 

Scorch

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
564
Location
Marayong
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Nothing infuriates me more than when noobs say that it's 'just a theory'. You do not know what you are talking about.
The funniest part is the fact that even if it were just a theory, it is a theory that was conceived based on an impartial analysis of the factual evidence and is based and is being consistently revised based on our ever-growing analytical knowledge of the early universe based on the evidence and science, which makes it still infinitely more viable than his explanation to any rational human being.

There's always a nice way of saying you don't believe in something. You should disagree in a way that doesn't make you look like a total jackass, unless that's what you're going for.
Wow. What a totally childish way to avoid actually engaging my arguments. Please point out when I said something that wasn't factual.

Science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.
Very vague, deistic faith yes; religious faith and science are entirely mutually exclusive. Religious faith begins with a several thousand year old claim of supreme and universal knowledge by superstitious peasants and splits one hair thousands of times in order to validate that preconception, whereas science reaches rational, revisable claims through impartial analysis of the evidence without preconceptions or with preconceptions that they are happy to change or discard entirely if the evidence supports a contrary point of analysis.

They are lightyears apart and entirely incompatible modes of thought.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 5)

Top