Site/Off-Topic Discussion Thread 4
2016 FSTDT Awards Winners!!
Help Syrian War Victims
Answers in Genesis,
Answers in Genesis
[9/30/2009 11:09:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 58
Submitted By: DevilsChaplain
I'll take the one that has been revived and corrected over the one that hasn't changed in two thousand years.
9/26/2009 10:15:18 PM
I think I prefer the one that's been revised and updated as human knowledge improves.
9/30/2009 11:19:12 PM
You really didn't think the entire theory would be discovered and explained instanteously, did you? These things take time and revision. In light of new evidence, theories can be altered or even done away with altogether, and that's by no means a bad thing. We actually care about learning the natural order of things, unlike some people who believe a book of baseless tales that calls itself the truth despite the lack of evidence. You fail science forever.
Also, evolution is not a "belief".
9/30/2009 11:21:18 PM
lol its so cute how they think the Bible hasn't been rewritten ever.
9/30/2009 11:31:30 PM
"Certitude" doesn't always signify "correctness".
I'm guessing the concern here is that the creationists cannot bear the idea that they'll die (no, they don't necessarily believe in a pre-millenial rapture) without any chance of getting an absolute, complete understanding of how everything came to be, and what good and evil are. If it were impossible, the cosmos itself has made it impossible for them to do everything utterly perfectly. Hence, they can't stand the idea that the explanation for life INTENDS to be constantly revised. If it's revised after one's death, then that one was utterly wrong. Primary flaw: belief that everything must be understand in an all-or-nothing context.
9/30/2009 11:39:22 PM
Ah, that evil self-reflection and self-criticism, correcting ideas and theories that have been proven wrong... in an attempt to obtain a view of the world that is increasingly in-tune with reality.
9/30/2009 11:47:13 PM
A quick Google tells me there are around 75 different versions of the Bible in print (in English alone). You were saying?
9/30/2009 11:48:13 PM
Which are you going to trust?
It is reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted and...
(The Theory of Evolution)
Directly observable in nature, the effects are reproducible in lab, and it's factual correctness is not subject to the personal biases of people.
9/30/2009 11:50:01 PM
Were they that embarrassed about it?
10/1/2009 12:01:13 AM
I prefer the one that evolves over time.
10/1/2009 12:01:57 AM
The first draft is always the one with the errors in it.
10/1/2009 12:10:37 AM
I'll trust the one that accepts changes and new theories instead of the one that sticks to what bronze age goat hearders wrote.
10/1/2009 12:37:52 AM
I see no difference. One is continually rewritten, and the other is continually reinterpreted. Seriously....this has got to be on of the stupidest things I've seen. Of course you go with the one that has been rewritten...as it is clearly the one more likely to have been adjusted to suit current scientific observation.
10/1/2009 1:08:07 AM
Evolution is constantly updated because it is continuously researched and as new facts, theories and evidence are discovered they are made known to the public.
The bible stays the same because you stubborn fucks refuse to accept that anything changes in this world.
10/1/2009 1:50:16 AM
I'll take the latter, thank you. There's a reason it's rewritten: it's based on the best available facts, and we get new facts all the time to make it better. It's not like it's ever been completely revised either (not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what the facts ask for, just that it says something about the foundation the theory started with). For a group of scientists, you guys REALLY don't understand how science works.
10/1/2009 2:21:10 AM
I'll take the one that stands up to scientific scrutiny, thanks.
10/1/2009 4:16:56 AM
I rlly should have submitted one of these but didn't know how to send pictures. There's one that says:
"We know the Bible is true because...
A. Scientists say so!
B. Psychologists say so!
C. Theologians say so!
D. God says so!
It's D. God Says So!
That's right! The Bible is true no matter what men say!"
10/1/2009 4:20:07 AM
(meanwhile, over at the AiG HQ...)
Bob: "Hey, Ken, what day is it today?"
Ken: "January 5th..."
Bob: (writes) "Jan-u-ary, fif-th."
Bob: "Six-teen... what?!"
Ken: "It's January 5th, 1611."
Bob: "Er, I don't think so."
Ken: "Sure it is, it says so on my desk calendar, right here."
Bob: "Ken, that's a piece of rock with 1/5/1611 scratched on it."
Ken: "Your point?"
Bob: "Desk calendars are those little blocks with one page a day that you tear off every morning? You know? So they always show the current date?"
Ken: "No, Bob,
always shows the current date."
Bob: "No, it always shows the
Ken: "Well of course, what are you going to trust more? A calendar that has never changed since it was made or one that needs revising again and again, every day?"
Bob: "Good point." (writes again) "...el-ev-en. Well that's the lease on the second creation museum done, we've agreed to lease the land from today, January 5th, 1611, to the end of 2010, a term of 399 years. Hmm, it doesn't look like the budget's going to cover it, Ken."
Ken: "Damn accountants! Can't anyone do their jobs properly? It's like those damn engineers who kept saying we needed more than 90 yards of joists to support the ceiling of our new 90 foot circular auditorium. Even
I showed them where the bible said they were wrong!"
10/1/2009 5:28:11 AM
I read the one on the right as "Evolution of belief", which sill sounds way more interesting that the bible. And it's revised regularly, you say?
10/1/2009 5:52:53 AM
That's the first thing I noticed as well. Many of these idiots don't even consider the countless times the bible has been rewritten or the various translations.....
10/1/2009 5:54:41 AM
Contrary to the creationists claims, the bible has been rewritten and revised more times than the theory of evolution has been corrected and made more accurate. But personally, I'll take the one with supporting evidence.
10/1/2009 5:56:12 AM
How about the one that takes recent scientific discoveries into account, as opposed to the static, unchanging mindset of 3000 years ago?
10/1/2009 6:03:16 AM
I think a book that is constantly revised as new information is found is far more reliable than one that hasn't been updated in 2000 years.
I don't get how Christians think that if an idea stays the same over a long period of time, it must be true, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hell, even science books are constantly updated as new information is learned. If they weren't, we'd still be treating sick people with leeches and boring holes in their skulls, not to mention thinking the earth is flat and the stars are tiny little lights about 1000 feet up in the air or so.
10/1/2009 6:09:44 AM
Well of course when the bible says the earth is flat, people believed it 100% back then.
Now they say it is just symbolic, or "re translate" it to say otherwise.
So, as you were saying..which book always stays the same?
10/1/2009 6:23:54 AM
Explain the different version of the various books of the Bible, some which contain entire sections that aren't present in the current form and others that contradict what you have now.
Aside from that, I think I'd trust the one that has been tested, retested and tested again and then
to provide me with the most current and widely accepted version. Your book hasn't been updated in 2,000 years, and that's for the most recent part of it. We wont even talk about the last time the OT was updated...
10/1/2009 6:37:10 AM