Why do Christians ignore the atrocities of the Old Testament?

No, I believe God made sure the canon was correct. As for the interpretation, it can be errant.

I don't think all Biblical Scholars are right or wrong, but they're fallible, just as I.

And I don't hold all translations to be inerrant.

 

Do you always answer "vague questions" with such absolute answers? ""Well, certainly some of them aren't ready to be newly grads in the professional world." So, which ones are you casting a shadow of doubt upon?

And you continue to evade my questions. Simply denying something does not irrefutably prove the point. The remainder of your post is just another excursion of evasion of the challenge for you to produce the irrefutable evidence that people have graduated who " don't necessarily have very good knowledge about the epistemological goals of science, which you make abundantly clear when you say things like "science fails at providing irrefutable proof."science "

 

No.

Myself, and I know of many other of my friends that were ill-prepared for the real world. There's your some right there.

Please, please, PLEASE, point out ONE question of yours that I have not answered. I will gladly answer them on the condition that you answer mine. Obviously you interrogating me is not debating, and it isn't a fair discussion because you're trying to lead the conversation down some windy non-relevant path into infinity.

Nope, of course I could be lying to you. Hell, I could be a computer program. But, it seems that what you're really trying to say with this line is: "Well, even if you really do deny it, I still think you believe in what I said you believe in," which is childish, but expected from someone like you.

When did I say that I had such irrefutable evidence? Go ahead, point it out to me. Oh, that's right, I didn't. You're trying to shift the goal post, AGAIN.

Well, at least you're pretty tacitly admitting you're a liar by not backing up the assertion that I slurred you. There's that.

 

Which one is inerrant?

Are approximations inerrant?

 

1. Yet you believe in a god? If matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed then it logically stands that it has always been here.

You seem to be operating under this false notion that things in nature have clearly delineated beginnings and endings. They don't. For the vast majority of phenomena that we have observed in the universe, there are not clear beginnings and endings, causes and effects, but rather we see constant cycles where everything is both a beginning and an end, a cause and an effect.

2. Time is an illusion created by perception. It's entirely arbitrary. Time does no exist as an objective thing.

 

God can create and destroy matter.

The rules of science do not apply to Him.

God's Law is higher than all laws, especially higher than science laws. A scientist is just a man, not a god.

 

And the instant you provide empirical testable evidence for your God, we will begin debating what powers your God does or does not have.

 

Talk about a sttttttrrrrrreeeeeetttttttttcccccchhhhhhhh.

funny I always thought Ham was considered white meat.

Dr. Stringer is a highly respected anthropologist and champion of the "out of Africa" theory. By utilizing his theory, you make it sound as tho he is a proponent of the Flood myth. He would not take your wild speculation about noah and his sons and the flood at all seriously and neither would any other serious athropologist.

 

Well, if God can circumvent all laws especially what we deem to be "scientific laws" as ricky said to lucy....

"you gotta lot of splainin to do."

I guess god isn't all that intelligent. Imagine his supremeness creating man and then getting angry because the man he created did exactly what God knew he would do - eat an apple (from the tree of knowledge no less) and kick him out eternally damning him and his offspring. got a bit of a masochistic streak it seems.

then he gets even more angry when all the people who had been living with original sin for thousands of years aren't towing his line - as he undoubtedly knew they would, so he kills em all. got a bit of an anger management problem it seems.

Its like he is a cruel child with an ant farm, lording it over the ants, flooding a tunnel here, collapsing one there, setting some on fire to watch them shrivel, setting off a firecracker to watch the chaos, and then "affectionately" feeding them so he can keep "playing" with them.

Nice guy. I don't think I'll play.

 

I don't think Einstein would agree with you. In fact I know he wouldnt.

 

I realize that you do have authority to speak for yourself, but do you have authority to speak for those others (your "friends")? Knowing now that (speaking in regard to you only) that you were "ill prepared", does that mean that the institutions of higher learning did not require any courses which educated the pupils on such matters as the 'philosophy of science'? As for your denial of always answering vague questions with absolute answers, I have to ask, why did you start answering vague questions with absolute answers? We are still discussing those same two issues and you have not convinced me of anything yet. Keep trying. BTW: Where is the irrefutable proof that you and some of your friends were ill prepared for the real world upon graduating?

 

Physics and our understanding of reality has moved far beyond Einstein.

 

I believe in the original manuscripts, that scripture doesn't affirm anything contrary to fact.

 

If the earth moves at a "mostly" constant rate, then that would be time, correct? Is the earth not slowing down? Is the universe expanding?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Time is a matter of perception. Without the ability to perceive there is no such thing as time. Processes such as the rate as which the Earth rotates would still go on, but there would be no metric to weigh them against.

- - - Updated - - -

They ignore the parts that don't fit their preconcieved result.

Creation "scientists" start with the assumption that the Earth was created, that a global flood happened, etc. and then go out and find evidence that they can claim backs them up. They then ignore anything that would contradict their position.

 

Once again, you've simply ignored what I have said over and over again and are asking the same damn question. I am not saying colleges are not preparing graduates for the professional world by not teaching them the philosophy of science. Unless you understand that, there isn't anything more to discuss on that subject.

That is in no way related to the main discussion, which you keep inching further and further away from. I see no reason why I would answer

No, you can discuss these same two issues, I'm done answering your questions until you get back on topic which you have refused to do for about two pages now. You aren't the question master, Incorporeal. I've humored you for far too long already.

I see no reason to even answer any more of your questions until you explain how you think irrefutable proof can be reached. Otherwise, there is simply no point in even pandering to you.

 

Its pretty easy actually. logical fallacies and other unsubstantiated linkages, using a subset of facts, misinterpreting language, there are any number of techniques.

 

Yes, as they should have, considering our knowledge of reality and physics in large part is due to the foundation that he provided. He got it wrong with quantum mechanics, but everyone is entitled to a mulligan or two.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the theories of relativity and special relativity are no longer valid?

 

Just like I have always asked where did God come from, and the answer is always, he/she/it/they always existed.
It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

How did he achieve this, and where is this perfect canon. BTW - God didn't create a canon.
Religion
Canon law, the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority
Canon law (Catholic Church)
Canonization, the process of declaring a person to be a Saint
Canon (priest), a Christian priest who belongs to one of certain chapters
Biblical canon
Canon (hymnography), a type of Eastern Orthodox hymn
Canon of the Mass, the Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Rite
Penitential canons
Taoist canon or Daozang
Pāli Canon
Chinese Buddhist canon
Tibetan Buddhist canon
Tanakh, sometimes referred to as the Jewish Bible Canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon

They're not suppose to be. As they are what is suppose to keep the word infallible.

So how do you pick and choose which are and which aren't?

 

Of course not. With what we know now, they support the idea that time is an illusion.