Bible + Fossil Record Proves God Does Not Exist

[AlanF]

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.

[Space Merchant]

And yet the Prism and South of Baghdad says otherwise.

[John Houston]

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.

[AlanF]

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?

[Space Merchant]

@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.