Jump to content

AlanF

Bible + Fossil Record Proves God Does Not Exist

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

AlanF -
Space Merchant -
5
323

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

The argument that “design requires a Supreme Designer” and that that Designer is the God of the Bible has a major flaw: According to 1 John 4:8, 16 “God is love”. As the Creator and Parent of all living things, and as one so lovingly cognizant of every creature that, according to Matthew 10:29:

Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.

The history of the last 550 million years of life, with the constant conflict between predators and prey and all the pain and suffering that history entails, proves unarguably that any postulated Creator is far from loving. A loving Creator, by definition, could not create a world in which the daily lot of so many life forms is to suffer a nature “red in tooth and claw”. Thus, either the God of the Bible is not loving, or he does not exist. Since the Bible says that "God is love", the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist.

An alternative is that there are one or more other sorts of Creators, but it is obvious that none of these are the Bible’s God, and that they are not loving. There might be any number of these sorts of ‘creators’ or ‘gods’, such as a Deistic god who created the universe and then went off to tend to other business, or some entity altogether different. Some Christians assign the word “God” to these; creation by them can be called forms of theistic evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say this... when I read about the creation, life was not created as "red in tooth and claw" as you put it. Life was not eating each other to exist. At death maybe, but no life form was hunting another for food in the beginning. Things have to make sense if one believes in scripture. Can't believe in one concept and not another. If it is written that life was to eat, and that was ALL LIFE, green vegetation, then common sense would tell me, the only meateating was going on at death, scavengering a carcass. No, wild ferocious dinosaurs as science think they know from bones. But ask yourself, what cleaned away these massive bodies after they died? We have sharks in the seas, what is left over it settles on the bottom for scavenging. And we see that today. Animals not created to live forever had to be removed, cleaned up after, who,did that Adam? Come on think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Houston said:

Quote

I would like to say this... when I read about the creation, life was not created as "red in tooth and claw" as you put it.

Sure it was. Read any decent books on geology and paleontology. The earth formed about 4.7 billion years ago, the earliest traces of life are at least 3.5 billion years old, macroscopic life with hard parts first appeared about 550 million years ago. Within a short time predators appeared. Do you not accept this?

Quote

Life was not eating each other to exist. At death maybe, but no life form was hunting another for food in the beginning.

Ah, you're a young-earth creationist. No wonder you say such things.

Quote

Things have to make sense if one believes in scripture.

So if scripture said the moon is made of cheddar cheese, would you believe it?

Quote

Can't believe in one concept and not another. If it is written that life was to eat, and that was ALL LIFE, green vegetation, then common sense would tell me, the only meateating was going on at death, scavengering a carcass.

So you think the Bible trumps science and the fossil record.

Quote

No, wild ferocious dinosaurs as science think they know from bones. But ask yourself, what cleaned away these massive bodies after they died?

Most predators are both scavengers and active hunters. Problem solved.

Quote

We have sharks in the seas, what is left over it settles on the bottom for scavenging. And we see that today. Animals not created to live forever had to be removed, cleaned up after, who,did that Adam? Come on think about it.

Predators that also scavenged.

The fossil record records plenty of examples of predator/prey interaction. For example, many trilobites, up to 520 million years old, exhibit bites taken out of their shells. A few of these exhibit partially healed bite marks, showing that they survived an attack and lived on. That is not possible in a young-earth creationist view. So again, which do you accept? The fossil record and science, or the fallible biblical interpretations of a few religious leaders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlanF Correction, fossils do not prove that God does not exist. To stop there makes it as though you dwell on things in the realm of vagueness. One thing for certain, some in the realm of science do believe God exist, and there is more than can be said.

That being said, you'd have to do way better than that if you are stopping on fossils.

Also

On 11/21/2019 at 8:51 AM, AlanF said:

Ah, you're a young-earth creationist. No wonder you say such things.

I like to point out that Restorationist, as is with other Christian Denominations, and a few among others, are not Creationist. Only Fundamentalist/Young Earthers, and a few Conservatives, are as such. The small reason being is that regarding the Genesis Act of Creation, there's nothing conflicting with scientific facts that has been revealed, more so, the creation account is taking with utmost seriousness.

That being said, it is very important to know what a Creationist is and what their beliefs is based on vs. a Christian and or someone of a faith group who does not ascribe to Creationism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,508
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.