Science Negates All of Abrahamic Religions

@indonesia-phil said
What on earth are you on about now? Perhaps if you re - write this in comprehendible English, it might be worth responding to, as it stands it reads like a load of gibberish, born out of desperation to say something, anything, to counter that which is blindingly obvious to anyone in possession of a rational, logical thought process. Calm down and try again.

It is simple, evolution can mean many things in the context it is used. From common ancestor to simply change over time, do you have difficulty with this? Suggesting I have to accept the whole gambit is simply not true.

@kellyjay said
Are you absolutely sure about that? Do you think any truth is possible without absolutes?

Truth is merely the map, not the territory.

The universe is an explosion expanding at near light speed; in your very own back yard, under every blade of grass, some creature is dismembering and devouring some other creature, alive. In this booming, buzzing, tumultuous confusion, you long for a rock to cling to -- yeah, I get that. The doubt always remains, maybe the people who wrote all the sacred texts from time immemorial were deluded and their wished-for absolutes are nothing but transcendental ventriloquism. Truth won't help you, not even Absolute Truth With Capital Letters, when you're face-to-face with a tiger in the jungle at night, or your house is crumbling in a Richter-scale 7.6 earthquake, or the Russians are marauding through your territory, killing and smashing everyone and everything in sight; either you have the resilience to survive, or you perish. That's reality. Don't take the map for the territory.

@moonbus said
Truth is merely the map, not the territory.

The universe is an explosion expanding at near light speed; in your very own back yard, under every blade of grass, some creature is dismembering and devouring some other creature, alive. In this booming, buzzing, tumultuous confusion, you long for a rock to cling to -- yeah, I get that. The doubt always remains, maybe the people ...[text shortened]... have the resilience to survive, or you perish. That's reality. Don't take the map for the territory.

Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good
No, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good
When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move

-- When the Levee Breaks, Led Zeppelin

@moonbus said
Truth is merely the map, not the territory.

The universe is an explosion expanding at near light speed; in your very own back yard, under every blade of grass, some creature is dismembering and devouring some other creature, alive. In this booming, buzzing, tumultuous confusion, you long for a rock to cling to -- yeah, I get that. The doubt always remains, maybe the people ...[text shortened]... have the resilience to survive, or you perish. That's reality. Don't take the map for the territory.

Historical truths that did occur are absolute truths, the fuzzier we get with those the more lost we are with respect to who we are. You lose your history and believe any story someone tells you about it, they can create enemies without real cause, or make you let down your guard with some you should concern yourself with. The truth about anything is reality as is, take that away you can paint pretty pictures in errors and lies.

-Removed-

Liar

@kellyjay said
Liar

You have been shown the exact place in that conversation where you acknowledged that the bible is not inerrant. Correct the record if you made a mistake or expressed yourself badly, by all means, but merely responding by pretending that someone is lying about that conversation is prideful low-integrity behaviour, pure and simple.

@fmf said
You have been shown the exact place in that conversation where you acknowledged that the bible is not inerrant. Correct the record if you made a mistake or expressed yourself badly, by all means, but merely responding by pretending that someone is lying about that conversation is prideful low-integrity behaviour, pure and simple.

Revisionist history and absolute truth make strange bedfellows.

@kellyjay said
Historical truths that did occur are absolute truths, the fuzzier we get with those the more lost we are with respect to who we are. You lose your history and believe any story someone tells you about it, they can create enemies without real cause, or make you let down your guard with some you should concern yourself with. The truth about anything is reality as is, take that away you can paint pretty pictures in errors and lies.

O, that's rich, coming from you. You think the entire history of the universe fits into a span of about 6,000 years or so, don't you?

@moonbus said
O, that's rich, coming from you. You think the entire history of the universe fits into a span of about 6,000 years or so, don't you?

If it does then there are a lot of assumptions about everything that are wrong, wouldn't they be? I cannot prove time so I don't argue it, it can be I admit, billions of years old, I don't know. You bringing that up as if it changes anything I said is a mystery. Do you think I'm wrong about the truth of history, something that I said was in error or was this a cheap shot to avoid that?

@kellyjay said
If it does then there are a lot of assumptions about everything that are wrong, wouldn't they be? I cannot prove time so I don't argue it, it can be I admit, billions of years old, I don't know. You bringing that up as if it changes anything I said is a mystery. Do you think I'm wrong about the truth of history, something that I said was in error or was this a cheap shot to avoid that?

Do you think I'm wrong about the truth of history?

I think you're wrong about the Earth being 6,000 years old. You've never once provided any evidence that your assertion is true other than to say that "it aligns with reality".

@kellyjay said
If it does then there are a lot of assumptions about everything that are wrong, wouldn't they be? I cannot prove time so I don't argue it, it can be I admit, billions of years old, I don't know. You bringing that up as if it changes anything I said is a mystery. Do you think I'm wrong about the truth of history, something that I said was in error or was this a cheap shot to avoid that?

If you think it is possible that God created the universe only a few thousand years ago and made fossils appear to be millions of years old and the light from distant stars appear to be billions years old, then you might as well believe that God created the universe just this very instant, that you didn't really sleep last night because the universe did not exist last night: God created fictional memories of a past which never happened, just as He created fossils from a past which never happened. If Adam had cut down a tree in the Garden of Eden, how many growth rings would he have seen there? 5, 10, 20 ? From a past which never happened, because God created it only hours prior to Adam. It is not a universe you live in, but a delusional, bizarre, compartmentalised, schizo-verse. And you expect me to believe you know what an absolute historical truth is, in such a schizo-verse? (Tell us again about the talking snake!)

@moonbus said
If you think it is possible that God created the universe only a few thousand years ago and made fossils appear to be millions of years old and the light from distant stars appear to be billions years old, then you might as well believe that God created the universe just this very instant, that you didn't really sleep last night because the universe did n ...[text shortened]... at an absolute historical truth is, in such a schizo-verse? (Tell us again about the talking snake!)

The fossil’s look like they look, our assigning age to them is on us not God. People can claim fossil look old, and claim men are really women all day long. Reality doesn’t change due to how we assign things.

If you want to talk about the distant past neither of us were there and by hypotheticals prove anything. We are stuck in the here and now do what we find now make sense in how it all started?

I already told you I don’t debate age, I can’t prove an old earth or a young one with scripture. It isn’t clear so if I make a claim about something not specifically addressed I would be in error.

Do you accept that if you are ignorant of historical realities someone could feed you errors creating false narratives? You don’t have to narrow your analysis to just scripture.