The Religion Discussion

[meccalli]

Evolution can and has been observed.

according to scientists, it takes too long to be observable, this makes the scientific process of observing, trial and proofing moot.

Just for the sake of argument, what are the alternatives that you rather be taught as part of the curriculum?

Just present all theories of the origin of life as we know them without bias, generally and namely divine, cosmic(panspermia) and the common physical ones, ie. clay, lightning, prim.soup. Obviously evolution naturally offers a natural affinity to the latter, as it is considered fact today, but at least it shows open mindedness to the unknown which is most imo. We don't even know what exactly is energy in its rawest state, nobody can tell you what it is, you have to experience it.

Science discredits and suppresses notions of spirits and other dimensional beings because they can't test it, its not tangible or physical. but it exists. Human testimony now is more insignificant than anything, yet thousands of credible, healthy, sane people with no prior connection to the topic report experiences with beings. actors, astronauts, nasa scientists, and on and on. Science calls it, a figment of the imagination, a product of the mind and physical factors, and they may be true in certain cases, but it shows dire ignorance to something so blatantly, yet obscurely real.

[Slartibartfast]

according to scientists, it takes too long to be observable

Wrong ...To be directly observable but all theories are based on observations. Without observations it would just be an inference.

Just present all theories of the origin of life as we know them without bias

Doesn't make senseThis would be great if time was not a limiting factor. The reason why evolution is preferred is because it has real world applications.

least it shows open mindedness to the unknown which is most imo.

Doesn't make senseThis is why the scientific method is taught. It is basically a "how to" guide on being open mided without being gullible.

We don't even know what exactly is energy in its rawest state, nobody can tell you what it is, you have to experience it.

Very wrong Depends on what kind of energy you are talking about. Heat (atomic vibrations), electrical (movement of electrons), light (waves and/or photons), chemical (derived from electrons position around a nucleus), atomic (sub-atomic inter-particle forces).
There are thousands of books that tell us what energy is. If you are looking for what sub-atomic particles are made up of (pure energy) then you can start looking a string theory. It has not been fully developed as yet, but, considering what has been discovered in the past few hundred years by scientists (see previous paragraph) I'm sure you can allow yourself a little faith that even this would be explained in due time.

Science discredits and suppresses notions of spirits and other dimensional beings because they can't test it, its not tangible or physical. but it exists. Human testimony now is more insignificant than anything, yet thousands of credible, healthy, sane people with no prior connection to the topic report experiences with beings. actors, astronauts, nasa scientists, and on and on. Science calls it, a figment of the imagination, a product of the mind and physical factors, and they may be true in certain cases, but it shows dire ignorance to something so blatantly, yet obscurely real.

This is simply just thinning all of the information out there to get useable information. How many discoveries or breakthroughs have been made in religion in the past thousand years compared to science? How much new information has been produced by religion over the past thousand years when compared to science? How much has religion improved the quality of life* over the past thousand of years when compared to science? This is the reason why religion is not considered as part of academia because the knowledge gained from it is mostly useless.

*You may argue that religion improves the quality of life on a spiritual and mental level a) You must first prove spirituality exists before you can make that assertions and b) a lot of scientific alternatives are offered to increase mental well being (even scientific theories showing how religion might increase your mental well being.

TL:DR At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is that society today can exist without religion but it cannot exist without science.

[Dizzy28]

Nice article in Friday's Express..

Yunno the Internet Express has a soft copy of this article right??

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commenta ... 54751.html

[meccalli]

Wrong ...To be directly observable but all theories are based on observations. Without observations it would just be an inference.

That's why it will always have the concept of theory attached to it, nobody lives that long and no one can prove it just like other scientific theories. Time alone will tell what else they can pull out of their hats to solidify its basis.

Doesn't make senseThis would be great if time was not a limiting factor. The reason why evolution is preferred is because it has real world applications.

Its ignorance, you can know the basis of all the theories in a few hours. The powers want no alternatives, science is the end.

Doesn't make senseThis is why the scientific method is taught. It is basically a "how to" guide on being open mided without being gullible.

Also, teaches ignorance again, if we cant test it and prove it, its the weak human mind(that created all these factual and brilliant theories) spazzing out, or it doesn't exist.

Very wrong Depends on what kind of energy you are talking about. Heat (atomic vibrations), electrical (movement of electrons), light (waves and/or photons), chemical (derived from electrons position around a nucleus), atomic (sub-atomic inter-particle forces).
There are thousands of books that tell us what energy is. If you are looking for what sub-atomic particles are made up of (pure energy) then you can start looking a string theory. It has not been fully developed as yet, but, considering what has been discovered in the past few hundred years by scientists (see previous paragraph) I'm sure you can allow yourself a little faith that even this would be explained in due time.

Those are all forms and expressions, if i push something, you say it takes energy to do so, both from myself and the object exerted upon.- we can go down the line trying to define it- from observable potential, kinetic, chemical, atomic and then we try to define it even more, and there we go, theories pull up to the site. Sure I have faith in science to come up with a new theory.

How much has religion improved the quality of life* over the past thousand of years when compared to science? This is the reason why religion is not considered as part of academia because the knowledge gained from it is mostly useless.

*You may argue that religion improves the quality of life on a spiritual and mental level a) You must first prove spirituality exists before you can make that assertions and b) a lot of scientific alternatives are offered to increase mental well being (even scientific theories showing how religion might increase your mental well being.

TL:DR At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is that society today can exist without religion but it cannot exist without science.

You would think so when listening to modern day scientists. Think about some of the greatest institutes of learning, yale ,harvard, oxford? You were considered illiterate at one time if you had no knowledge of the bible. I don't believe in religion neither consider myself religious, but if you want to use the term. Religion came first, The God of the bible inspired the greatest and most significant scientists we know of to practice science. I don't need to name them, but, consider what our world would be like today without those 'religious' men who believed in creation and God. The same people who are considered insignificant and guilty of restricting and 'holding back' progress with their morals and beliefs. What would those men say about the state of thought permeating through the ranks of science today.

[nareshseep]

That's why science will reign... Science is always open to change.

Atheists wish to live in peace with everyone.
Atheists love mankind and mother earth.
Atheists forgives the theists for there ignorance.

[redmanjp]

[bluefete]

TL:DR At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is that society today can exist without religion but it cannot exist without science.

But religion is the pre-cursor to science! It frames science in a broad framework and leaves it to the scientists to discover the nitty-gritty.

[Slartibartfast]

...nobody lives that long and no one can prove it just like other scientific theories...

I don't think you understand how proofs work. You are able to prove something happened without having been there when it did. Time is only plays a part in the preservation of that proof.

Its ignorance, you can know the basis of all the theories in a few hours. The powers want no alternatives, science is the end.

Again, with so much information with proof and real world application to be taught, why bother teach religion? That is what churches and temples and mosques are for. I never saw them teach evolution in church. And just mentioning it does not count

Also, teaches ignorance again, if we cant test it and prove it, its the weak human mind(that created all these factual and brilliant theories) spazzing out, or it doesn't exist.

If you can't test or prove something exists, how do you know it does? School is not a place to teach things that have no evidence or proof. That is what literature is for.

Those are all forms and expressions, if i push something, you say it takes energy to do so, both from myself and the object exerted upon.- we can go down the line trying to define it- from observable potential, kinetic, chemical, atomic and then we try to define it even more, and there we go, theories pull up to the site. Sure I have faith in science to come up with a new theory.

So you are saying that scientists do know what energy is? If not then you need to rephrase your question.

...You were considered illiterate at one time if you had no knowledge of the bible. I don't believe in religion neither consider myself religious, but if you want to use the term. Religion came first, The God of the bible inspired the greatest and most significant scientists we know of to practice science. I don't need to name them, but, consider what our world would be like today without those 'religious' men who believed in creation and God.

OK two things
1. Like the rest of the world literacy has clearly advanced over the years
2. Science is impersonal. Personal beliefs create a bias if allowed to interfere and this. It's nice that they believed in God but don't make the mistake of thinking that was significant. 90% of scientists at PhD level are atheists and for good reason.

You might not be a religious person but I am all about science. I've studied it, taught it, work using it and read up on it whenever I get the chance. So just say the word and I could give you citations to back up everything I have said. I can show you where to find proof to all of it. That is something I have never heard any learned
Theologian say.

And again I ask you, in what way over the past 1000 years has religion improved the standard of living in a way that science could not?

Keep in mind I only have to go back a few years for science

[bluefete]

Does evolution happen very slowly or very quickly??

[nareshseep]

Does evolution happen very slowly or very quickly??

It takes time, but if you have selective breeding certain traits can be isolated in a relatively short space of time

I will respond with a question as well... How was the egyptian pyramid built?

[maj. tom]

Evolution does not have to happen at all.
Most species die.
Very few pass on a random mutation which causes them to adapt better to the stress that an environment puts on the organism and its offspring.

Random mutations can get selected through breeding by the probability of genes combining in a specific recessive or dominant way, or the plant or animal can just die and not pass it on. Each generation that passes on a mutated gene that helps them survive better in an environment is evolution. Darker skin in hotter climates. Epicanthic folds of the eye to constantly cold climates. More body fat accumulation for Arctic dwellers. More anciently: bipedalism, gestation period and brain size.

Evolution is not a straight line, it is like spreading branches of a very large tree. If you go back along a branch you can eventually find a main branch that will be the common ancestor to all the branches from that point forward. Most branches just lead to nowhere. Those families of organisms just died out.

You are most likely bovine lactose tolerant because of a specific mutation that caused your digestive system to produce an enzyme specific to breaking down bovine lactose in milk. Most humans and all other animals have always been lactose intolerant of lactose from other animals. When we started farming and keeping livestock and drank more milk as adults as a food source our environment changed. A random mutation showed up and it was passed on as a dominant gene. Nothing selects this. It just happens, and statistically over a long time it became significant. Like tens of thousands of years to show significance. Now most people in the world are lactose tolerant to a large range of animal milk.

[meccalli]

I don't think you understand how proofs work. You are able to prove something happened without having been there when it did. Time is only plays a part in the preservation of that proof.

Proof in this case inherently strange to the scientific process because of the nature of testing-inductive. You run the theory through its paces and see if it lines up or you supply what you think is defining evidence. Proof on the other hand, is mathematical and apodictic. However, if I grab something amd its hot, i know its hot, and can say that definitively, scientific theory never reaches that point. People love to use the fossil record as evidence for evolution. Dawkins himself says its terrible because of the gaps and out of place fossils.

Again, with so much information with proof and real world application to be taught, why bother teach religion? That is what churches and temples and mosques are for. I never saw them teach evolution in church. And just mentioning it does not count

Where do kids spend most of their week and more-so lives? most have sunday cartoons on their mind rather than what they're learning in religious institutions when they're being told that God doesn't exist in schools. God is brought down to nought.

If you can't test or prove something exists, how do you know it does? School is not a place to teach things that have no evidence or proof. That is what literature is for.

I'm not saying to teach about God in schools, just be objective in beliefs and theories, so young children don't spend 30 years with a close-minded bias towards a single theory like its absolute truth. The journey teaches and chastises however, but people come to God eventually and they can look back and know what was truth and error.

You won't hear theologians say it because it doesn't work like science. You can only show me evidence of what you believe to be definitive, not proof. God works with faith, not visible evidence, its plain as day in the great book. Religion has done nothing for us, past, present and future except cause hate, confusion and violence. Self imposed religion or whatever term you might call it is different to faith in an entity you know exists despite the lack of visible evidence and naysayers.

I still stand by those respectable men like newton, faraday and planck, and alot more, all of whom, without direction and inspiration from God would have never taken interest in science.

[Slartibartfast]

...However, if I grab something amd its hot, i know its hot, and can say that definitively, scientific theory never reaches that point. People love to use the fossil record as evidence for evolution. Dawkins himself says its terrible because of the gaps and out of place fossils...

However you can see an object that was charred or melted and conclude that it was subjected to heat (above it's melting point at least). This is the way that that evidence would work. And yes there are some gaps in the theory of evolution which were also outlined in Darwin's book. It is still used as the preferred method because it shows the most promise (supporting evidence and whatnot). What other alternatives are there that come close to explaining our origin in such depth and with so much supporting evidence? (i.e. gaps smaller than those found in evolution).

Where do kids spend most of their week and more-so lives? most have sunday cartoons on their mind rather than what they're learning in religious institutions when they're being told that God doesn't exist in schools. God is brought down to nought.

I don't mind it being taught in schools if all religions could agree on what should be taught (just like every other subject), and it must be presented objectively with supporting and oposing evidence. Would you agree that would be adequate?

I'm not saying to teach about God in schools, just be objective in beliefs and theories, so young children don't spend 30 years with a close-minded bias towards a single theory like its absolute truth. The journey teaches and chastises however, but people come to God eventually and they can look back and know what was truth and error.

I agree once the topics are scrutinised and a syllabus standardised as mentions in the previous point. If must be treated as a proper subject if you want it to be taught as a proper subject. You can call the subject "Religious History" or "Religious Literature".
Also, it seems as though more and more people are turning away from God than those that are coming to him so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make*.

*http://bit.ly/1gFYFY7 You can do an image search if you to get a quick idea

You won't hear theologians say it because it doesn't work like science. You can only show me evidence of what you believe to be definitive, not proof. God works with faith, not visible evidence, its plain as day in the great book.

If is doesn't work like science then you agree we can't teach it alongside science. And if you want to teach something is schools it should at least be able to stand up to the inevitable question of "Why?" What would your answer be if you have no evidence or supporting theories with evidence? Also, how would you teach them to differentiate between what is taught about God and what is just bull$h!t? School is not a place for faith.

Also, what "great book" are we talking about here?

Religion has done nothing for us, past, present and future except cause hate, confusion and violence. Self imposed religion or whatever term you might call it is different to faith in an entity you know exists despite the lack of visible evidence and naysayers.

At least we totally agree here. The only problem is that all religions have one thing in common. One thing that they use as their driving force.

I still stand by those respectable men like newton, faraday and planck, and alot more, all of whom, without direction and inspiration from God would have never taken interest in science.

It's ok that you feel that way, but, the net effect of belief in God on academia (especially science) has been negative. Also, keep in mind that science is universal. This means that even if those people did not exist we would have still gotten the same exact theories and facts, just at a different time. It's just a coincidence that the people that discovered those facts believed in God. Not even a significant coincidence as most peopl believed in God back then so I don't see what he has to do with any of this.

[RBphoto]

TL:DR At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is that society today can exist without religion but it cannot exist without science.

But religion is the pre-cursor to science! It frames science in a broad framework and leaves it to the scientists to discover the nitty-gritty.

Anddd.. The scientist proved religion is wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

Caves were the pre cursor to houses, horse driven carts were the pre cursor to cars. The only significant point that statement makes is that we were once a lot more ignorant than we are now. The shift from religion to science shows progress.

Also what do you mean by it frames science? In what sense? It's closer to the opposite of science than it is to science itself. Where did you get this information? It makes no sense!

Btw still waiting for an answer for my previous question.

[DJ]

Caves were the pre cursor to houses, horse driven carts were the pre cursor to cars. The only significant point that statement makes is that we were once a lot more ignorant than we are now. The shift from religion to science shows progress.

Also what do you mean by it frames science? In what sense? It's closer to the opposite of science than it is to science itself. Where did you get this information? It makes no sense!

Btw still waiting for an answer for my previous question.

if u were monitoring this thread as long as I have (>3years), you would know to expect ridiculous statements like these from Mr Bluefete......................... But also expect that he would not answer you now. Megadoc is similar, but stupider in a bolder way.

[Altec55]

[meccalli]

Dawkins likes to use adapted animal traits in respect to their current location. Existing evidence dissected to replay the occurrence, like a crime scene- that's what he favours over the fossil record. Newton believed that the evidence for God was the splendour of the existing world, creation. Obviously going down that road is a barfight and cyclical. Faith in the unknown and unseen is inherent of spiritual matters, and that will always be of some contention in regard to the scientific view. It can't be taught in that way that scrutinizes it for lack of evidence and thus, it wont be considered in schools due to the current world view dominated by science. Like you believe,' school is not a place for faith.'

I believe in God of the bible, and I have a duty to acknowledge and obey my creator. I don't see it as religion. Yahshua made that clear when he rejected man made doctrine that bonds men to petty rituals and customs. The great book for me is the scriptures. torah, writings of the prophets and the gospels. Seeing scripture unfold before my eyes, even at my very young lifetime, and the pride within me of my connection to my God is good enough for me. Every time I've been unsure, I've seen him reassure me undoubtedly. But of course human testimony is moot, and my mind is just playing tricks on me/deluded. You see the great christian scientists as a result of the age, a norm. I see them as not having any interest in science, if it weren't for God.

[MG Man]

every time I read your scripture, I think 'people believe this shut?'

[bluefete]

Does evolution happen very slowly or very quickly??

It takes time, but if you have selective breeding certain traits can be isolated in a relatively short space of time

I will respond with a question as well... How was the egyptian pyramid built?

Line by line and precept upon precept.

Some say via slavery. Do we really know in the 21st c how a bce pyramid was built. We can say the stones were quarried from nearby quarries and pulled by slaves and animals to their final destination where they were assembled.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104302.htm

I am actually using science here.

[bluefete]

TL:DR At the end of the day, the crux of the matter is that society today can exist without religion but it cannot exist without science.

But religion is the pre-cursor to science! It frames science in a broad framework and leaves it to the scientists to discover the nitty-gritty.

Anddd.. The scientist proved religion is wrong.

Did they, really? Or is it that scientists are only now starting to understand the details of the broad framework that was given thousands of years ago?

[bluefete]

Evolution does not have to happen at all.
Most species die.
Very few pass on a random mutation which causes them to adapt better to the stress that an environment puts on the organism and its offspring.

Random mutations can get selected through breeding by the probability of genes combining in a specific recessive or dominant way, or the plant or animal can just die and not pass it on. Each generation that passes on a mutated gene that helps them survive better in an environment is evolution. Darker skin in hotter climates. Epicanthic folds of the eye to constantly cold climates. More body fat accumulation for Arctic dwellers. More anciently: bipedalism, gestation period and brain size.

Evolution is not a straight line, it is like spreading branches of a very large tree. If you go back along a branch you can eventually find a main branch that will be the common ancestor to all the branches from that point forward. Most branches just lead to nowhere. Those families of organisms just died out.

You are most likely bovine lactose tolerant because of a specific mutation that caused your digestive system to produce an enzyme specific to breaking down bovine lactose in milk. Most humans and all other animals have always been lactose intolerant of lactose from other animals. When we started farming and keeping livestock and drank more milk as adults as a food source our environment changed. A random mutation showed up and it was passed on as a dominant gene. Nothing selects this. It just happens, and statistically over a long time it became significant. Like tens of thousands of years to show significance. Now most people in the world are lactose tolerant to a large range of animal milk.

So you are positing random occurrence through chance. Following that trends means that we are all here now by chance. Granted we had no say in how we got there. So we are random creatures. Not so??

[Slartibartfast]

Anddd.. The scientist proved religion is wrong.

Did they, really?

Yes

Or is it that scientists are only now starting to understand the details of the broad framework that was given thousands of years ago?

No. The information in the bible remains just as useless today as it was years ago.

If fact, the bible starts out be being wrong. In one day created the heavens and the Earth
Nope the earth was the last thing to form

God created all of the starts in one day (a fraction of the time he took to make the Earth)
Nope, the creation of the Earth did not take nearly as long as the rest of the universe combined


In the beginning God said "Let there be light"
Yay! One point for God. But do you think this four word sentence is a "broad framework" for astronomy? Because that tells me nothing, except that light came first.

If these statements are not applicable, please state why. I do not want to make any strawman arguments. But can you please provide clarification about the "broad formwork that was given thousands of years ago".

Here is how I see it. Science, by definition, works on evidence alone (absolutely no exceptions, not even for my Mom). There is no evidence that religion formed the basis to science (and there is evidence that religion hindered the advancement of science). Ergo, by definition, religion plays no part in science (because of lack of evidence). If you want to argue something about God influencing science without the involvement of religion please note that you cannot use any holy books (cuz those are part of religion)

[bluefete]

Caves were the pre cursor to houses, horse driven carts were the pre cursor to cars. The only significant point that statement makes is that we were once a lot more ignorant than we are now. The shift from religion to science shows progress.

Also what do you mean by it frames science? In what sense? It's closer to the opposite of science than it is to science itself. Where did you get this information? It makes no sense!

Btw still waiting for an answer for my previous question.

if u were monitoring this thread as long as I have (>3years), you would know to expect ridiculous statements like these from Mr Bluefete (:P )......................... But also expect that he would not answer you now. Megadoc is similar, but stupider in a bolder way.

Sorry for the delay.

Slartibartfast - You are right. We were (probably) a lot more ignorant long ago. That is why, it is only now that scientists are beginning to understand the workings of the universe.

From The Book of Enoch (written thousands of years ago)- Found in the Ethiopian Bible:

[Chapter 2]

1 Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, and the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and 2 transgress not against their appointed order. Behold ye the earth, and give heed to the things which take place upon it from first to last, how steadfast they are, how none of the things upon earth 3 change, but all the works of God appear to you. Behold the summer and the winter, how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it.

[Chapter 3]

Observe and see how (in the winter) all the trees seem as though they had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes.

[Chapter 4]

And again, observe ye the days of summer how the sun is above the earth over against it. And you seek shade and shelter by reason of the heat of the sun, and the earth also burns with growing heat, and so you cannot tread on the earth, or on a rock by reason of its heat.

[Chapter 5]

1 Observe ye how the trees cover themselves with green leaves and bear fruit: wherefore give ye heed and know with regard to all His works, and recognize how He that liveth for ever hath made them so. 2 And all His works go on thus from year to year for ever, and all the tasks which they accomplish for Him, and their tasks change not, but according as God hath ordained so is it done. 3 And behold how the sea and the rivers in like manner accomplish and change not their tasks from His commandments'.


The broad framework was given to us many years ago. Over many millennia, scientists have been able to discover the rules that govern these great creations.

[bluefete]

Anddd.. The scientist proved religion is wrong.

Did they, really?

Yes

Or is it that scientists are only now starting to understand the details of the broad framework that was given thousands of years ago?

No. The information in the bible remains just as useless today as it was years ago.

If fact, the bible starts out be being wrong. In one day created the heavens and the Earth
Nope the earth was the last thing to form

God created all of the starts in one day (a fraction of the time he took to make the Earth)
Nope, the creation of the Earth did not take nearly as long as the rest of the universe combined


In the beginning God said "Let there be light"
Yay! One point for God. But do you think this four word sentence is a "broad framework" for astronomy? Because that tells me nothing, except that light came first.

If these statements are not applicable, please state why. I do not want to make any strawman arguments. But can you please provide clarification about the "broad formwork that was given thousands of years ago".

Here is how I see it. Science, by definition, works on evidence alone (absolutely no exceptions, not even for my Mom). There is no evidence that religion formed the basis to science (and there is evidence that religion hindered the advancement of science). Ergo, by definition, religion plays no part in science (because of lack of evidence). If you want to argue something about God influencing science without the involvement of religion please note that you cannot use any holy books (cuz those are part of religion)

Deep breath. Okay.

The earth was created before there was light. And before the sun, moon and the stars. This makes the earth very old indeed. Read the chronology properly. Water covered the entire earth. There was also water in space. Isn't this what scientists are ONLY NOW discovering?????

Now try telling a scientists that the third planet from the sun was created before the sun that currently holds it in place and you will be considered mentally challenged.

But who is to say that it was not so in the beginning? And when the sun was created, it pulled the earth into its orbit.Scientists are still struggling to understand the beginnings of the universe.

Anyways, the Bible gives us the broad details. It speaks of the orbits of constellations and speeding galaxies (in the book of Psalms and the Book of Job) long before we had the technologies to see them.

If science works on evidence alone, why is it so hard to give God the credit for the broad details he revealed many years ago?

[janfar]

I just read this and started hemmoraging thru my ears.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -astronomy

[bluefete]

I just read this and started hemmoraging thru my ears.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -astronomy

Why would you get upset at that when this supports it?


View of Earth from a camera on V-2 #13, launched October 24, 1946. (White Sands Missile Range/Applied Physics Laboratory)


Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-fi ... RdlCKRe.99


http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... th/237167/

[janfar]

I surely am not the one to go thru the 'earth is 6000 years' debate with you all.

[bluefete]

I surely am not the one to go thru the 'earth is 6000 years' debate with you all.

I was not looking at the 6,000 years debate. I was looking at the earth being round and "hanging in space" debate.

[Slartibartfast]

Did you ever wonder why these "Scientific interpretations" of the bible are always found out after scientists discover what is going on. It's funny that the bible's writings are not taught (literally like science) but it's interpretations are taught as fact. But these interpretations come after the discoveries of man. It's as though the teachings of the bible are inspired by man (even if the writing was inspired by God).

Bluefete can you show evidence to the contrary or explain how the teachings of the bible caters to this fact?