You've been well and truly brainwashed mate. Tell me, how do you know 'the universe is expanding'? How is it measured?
Speaking of the creation of mankind......let's talk about the human body. Genesis 2 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Lo, and behold. Bang-on again! Science had discovered that the human body is actually made up of elements and minerals that are found in dirt (earth's crust). https://www.livescience.com/3505-che...uman-body.html And guess what. We are what we eat! And because we are made of various minerals, vitamins, and elements found in the dirt of the earth, look at the list of mineral supplements you need for good health! https://www.livescience.com/3505-che...uman-body.html
Agreed and the Philosophy of Religion is a BS branch of Philosophy so we can just pretend that branch never existed. Like the second Highlander and the last Highlander movies if your a fan. ^_^
The title is clear. It's not like as if it's a false advertisement that tricked viewers into coming here, and getting trapped. If you guys find the subject ridiculous, irritating, disappointing....or, distressing....... ..........nothing forces you to keep reading. Run to the nearest exit: it's just a click away. However, if curiousity gets the better of you, that's okay too. You're welcome. Don't forget to buckle up.
THE SNAKE! I almost forgot about the snake! Genesis is in-lined with the latest finding, too! Genesis 3 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. About the snake - what does that phrase "you will crawl on your belly and eat dust," illustrate? That the snake didn't use to slither before then, right? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ae03abe02706 Snakes Used to Have Legs and Arms ? Until These Mutations Happened How Snakes Lost Their Legs : The Two-Way : NPR You WILL crawl on your belly..... So, according to the Book of Genesis, the snake used to have limbs (because it didn't crawl slithering on its belly until it was cursed!) Now, why would the snake evolve to slither instead? I wonder about that. Wouldn't it have been better to be able to grab and catch your food with your hands? What could be the plus point for slithering on your belly, compared to being able to run and chase, and grab?
How can a book - that's not meant to be a science book - estimated to have been written 3,000 years ago....... ......contain so many information that are just recently confirmed by modern science? Anyone who uses his critical thinking, must at least, entertain that question. Most, if not all of those information given, are not observable! How could the ancient writers have known about all those? What other ancient book as ancient as the Bible, could boast of having made so many claims that were later confirmed or supported by science?
So, are you saying ALL snakes used to have legs or that the earth wasn't created 4778 years ago? 5,000 years is not long enough for snakes to evolve and lose their legs.
Furthermore..... We're not talking merely about one or two claims - that we can point to mere coincidence! There are a lot of claims, and we're just on the Book of Genesis! If all those claims were not observable in those ancient days....... .......how could they have known about them?
Science hasn't proven anything in Genesis. Quite the opposite. You begin with a falsehood and go off on a tangent from there.
Btw, The NAS statement is corroborated by another prominent member (Francis Collins), and an advocate of Theistic evolution.....who actually renamed Theistic Evolution. He now calls it "Biologos." Look how it mirrors the statement of the NAS: How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? Look how it jives with the NAS statement: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html Who is Francis Collins? He's among the heavy weight scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
About the snake - what does that phrase "you will crawl on your belly and eat dust," illustrate? That the snake didn't use to slither before then, right? I see you omit the phrase 'eat dust'. And many lizards have no legs. Get back! Crawl away! Get away from me, you snake! Go, be drowned in the Lake of the Abyss, at the place where your father commanded that the slaying of you should be carried out."[6]. Egyptian Book of the Dead. Centuries before the Bible. A lot of creatures have adapted form to accommodate their situation. The idea of metamorphosis - changing shape - goes back up to 30,000 years in cave paintings.
Biologos works to create a need for their god. It's a methodology that first determines the preferred answer and then works to ensure that is the only answer that survives. There isn't anything legitimate about that kind of process. It's essentially the same as creationism and ID, as they are two other slightly different directions that work to promote the idea that there is a need for the supernatural involvement of their god - again, regardless of the absence of evidence. I find it fascinating that Biologos claims to accept evolution but then says it rejects "atheistic evolutionism". What the heck is THAT? Again, they accept science right up to the point where they decided to dump science in favor of finding a role for their god to play.
I liked the first Highlander movie -- but it was a fantasy. God and/or Mother Nature did not create any super-humans. We are all just men -- not gods -- not giants -- just men. That's from Conan The Barbarian (written by John Milius).
The philosophy of religion is simply an analytical attempt to determine what gave rise to religion in the first place. For ancient cave men and women it was probably just superstition. The Sun appears as the first god in most religions and then the Moon as the first goddess. For ancient civilizations when they reached the civilization phase with agriculture and farming and empires (credit Sargon The Great of Akkad in Mesopotamia) -- religion already existed with priests and ministers. However the kings used these to proclaim themselves sons of gods or else gods themselves to cement their hold on the hearts and minds of the common people. Short and sweet. Now you know everything there is to know about the philosophy of religion.
The emphasis was to crawl on its belly. Omitting the phrase "eat dust" doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true. Snakes flick their tongues out - so it's also possible that they pick up dust . I think the "eat dust" part was more of a poetic, or dramatical expression. Like I said, my emphasis was the loss of limbs. Yeah. Like the snake, they're reptiles too! Anyway....if you believe in evolution, why would that be surprising to you? And? What's the significance of that? Does it say in any way that the snake USED TO HAVE LEGS? Irrelevant.
I don't see that as meaning anything at all. Religion and science CAN live together. However, your site directly assaults science, going so far as to use ad hom. It's hard to watch religion take the low road. And, it's directly counter to America's best interests - both for religion AND for science.
Look, every theory about what caused or was before the big bang is an extrapolation. You can't say the big bang created the universe or the material world or that God made it. Its all extrapolation.
I suppose I was merely giving a corroborative example of the kind of scientist that the NAS talks about - those who believe in Theistic Evolution. Biologos attacks science? I'm not discussing politics here.
I agree. Yes, I can. The general consensus is that the big bang marks the beginning. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-12-big-theory.html#jCp
Why the emphasis on crawling and forgetting the dust part. Isn't that cherry picking again. Nothing surprises me except your emphasis on some things, and ignoring others. You suggested the snake might have had legs. Creatures have evolved to fit their environment. All sorts of strange doctrines have come out of people's interpretations of the Bible. NOT LEAST CHRISTIANITY which was formed by taking various so called prophecies from the Tanakh out of context and using them to make a Jewish baby be born in a town where he need never have been born in. Events that make no sense whatever if you know the background to the story and have studied the Tanakh, which, incidentally, was never written for gentiles to read. The Pentateuch is simply a mishmash of stories, and proven ancient history points that out. The rest of the Tanakh has history that is partly proved by history, archaeology and science. It is fundamentally flawed by serious exaggerations, such as the highly exaggerated story of a tribal 'King' David, and the omission of important, and influential kings like Omri. I could go on. SciFi books have been written in the past century in which the plot has included 'far-fetched' technology which has now come to pass. Do we claim that the writer understood what he was writing? So, forgive me, but your explanations of mythical stories have little meaning to me. Good luck.
God tells you nothing, recruiters do. As for "Indeed, it's been discovered, now we know that the universe had a beginning.", your God's adherent's assertion is still pretty much that the "new world" did not exist until they blundered into it.
