Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 10:42 AM
Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
A friend of mine sent me this link and I am perusing it now. So far, so good. Thumbsup

http://www.christianitydisproved.com/science.html

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 10:50 AM
RE: Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
Thank you for the link. I like the format, clean and concise.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a message, complain to me and I will be happy to demonstrate.

[Image: tta.php]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KVron's post
29-04-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
Anyone else think KC might be having temporal lobe epilepsy? Or that is his conversion story's reason?

But in all seriousness, have you ever been to a neurologist? (I truly say that not trying to be an ass)

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
Logical Argument
If the Bible is 100% factually accurate, then the Universe is not billions of years old.
The Universe is billions of years old.
Therefore the Bible is not 100% factually accurate.

While I do agree with the conclusion of the above argument I do not think that it is a sound argument since it is based on the false premise that the Bible makes any statement concerning the age of the Earth and/or the Universe. For someone to be able to make such a claim, one would have to interpret Genesis in a way that I do not think is warranted. What reason do we have to assume that the first day in the creation account of the Bible was 24 hours long? After all, there was no one around to make such a determination, especially considering that the sun allegedly hadn't been created yet.

The defending lawyer in the screen adaption of the play "Inherit the Wind" explains this in an excellent way.



Obviously, there are dozens of good arguments against the accuracy of the biblical account; this one, however, is not one of them.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-04-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
Yeah, that argument sux. Tongue

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Science and the Bible (christianitydisproved.com)
(30-04-2013 01:08 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yeah, that argument sux. Tongue


Yup, time to usher that argument out. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: