Half of European men share King Tut's DNA

[Amianthus]

I am not talking about sorting things in different ways, I am talking about the functionality of the universe. A universe in which things operate with the greatest possible degree of harmony would be a perfect universe. One in which comets and asteroids collide and stars blow up is less than perfect.

Stars "blow[ing] up" is how heavier elements form planets and in turn our ecosystem. There is an order there, even though you refuse to see it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not refuse to see it, I simply point out that it is not an orderly way for this to happen. There is a reason why we do not use dynamite to construct buildings.

[Amianthus]

There is a reason why we do not use dynamite to construct buildings.

Sure, if there is something there that would interfere with the new building.

[Plane]

  If your building includes stone , you know that explosives were probly used in the quarry.

    Supernovas are an absolute requirement for human life to exist.

    Should a requirement for neatness find fault with a universe that is dusty from all the anchient explosions?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say that the universe should be neat. I said that it is NOT neat. It is NOT orderly.

The disorderliness suggests that it was not created by an omnipotent, perfect Deity, capable of creating perfection.

That is my point.

It is also a violation of all the laws of physics the assumption that in the beginning there was nothing at all, and somehow, God created everything from nothing. The ex nihilo creation of the Universe is extremely illogical.

And of course, we know that God did not get it right the first try, because the Bible tells us so. God got do pissed at Mankind that he had a Great Flood and drowned damned near everyone.

Why? Because despite his assumed ability to know the future and to be omnipotent and perfect, he screwed up on the first go, and had to start again.

[Plane]

   Everywhere that humankind can understand order we do find order, anywhere we do not see order does not prove that there is any disorder because there can be order there that we are not understanding yet, if ever.

    Gods process of creation need not be well ordered to our eyes to be well ordered for Gods purposes.

      You do think that the story of Noahs flood is literally true?
       I would feel guilty to argue you out of that.

   

[Xavier_Onassis]

You do think that the story of Noahs flood is literally true?
       I would feel guilty to argue you out of that.

==============================================
There was a flood that wiped out a lot of people when some phenomenon, likely an earthquake, broke the natural dam between the Sea of Marmara, which connects to the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea, which had a lot of cities and towns along its shores, all of which were flooded out rapidly. Perhaps it was raining heavily at the time. That would have seemed like the destruction of a large enough part of the world to develop into a myth of total destruction. There is clear evidence that the Black Sea rose rapidly, and that many communities were flooded.

But no, I do not believe that the entire Earth was flooded. But people who believe in the Bible DO seem to believe it. It indicates that God either was not prescient that Mankind would all become corrupt and need to be destroyed, or that he made a pretty silly mistake by not preventing it. Why create Mankind in a particular way if you know that he will not live up to your expectations? Why wipe out millions of people if you know what sort of people are needed (and apparently God knew that Noah & Co. was a good choice.
 
Biblical "Scholars" are not true scholars, because they start with the premise that the Bible is entirely true, and apparent discrepancies must be explained.  A true scholar assumes that nothing is proven and tries his best to debunk hypotheses one by one until only one remains. You never hear of a Biblical "scholar" trying to disprove anything.

The scientific method to determine the truth is to assume that the truth is unknown, and then to propose hypotheses and attempt to disprove them based on provable facts.

[Plane]

  There is bible arceology, which is the main reason that you know of the giant black sea flood.

     If you were a scribe of the era 3000 BC(E) (heh), would you write a journal of events as best you understood them? Would your inscriptions be totally useless 5000 years later?

     Try to imagine Gods point of view, is mankind a finished product or a work in progress?

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/


http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is bible arceology, which is the main reason that you know of the giant black sea flood.

     If you were a scribe of the era 3000 BC(E) (heh), would you write a journal of events as best you understood them? Would your inscriptions be totally useless 5000 years later?

     Try to imagine Gods point of view, is mankind a finished product or a work in progress?

=========================================
After God was through with creating the Garden of Eden, he said "This is good." He did NOT say "they'll be ready after several thousand years".

Or so the Bible says. If the Bible is the word of God, then you have to accept it as that. I don't. Perhaps some of it could be considered a hypothesis, but not all of it.

And no, I know of the Black Sea Flood because of archaeologists who have surveyed ruins under water there that were submerged by a flood.

The Biblical scribe said that GO flooded the entire Earth. If he was divinely inspired, he was still wrong.

To look at things from God's point of view, one must assume that there is a God. Otherwise, it is like looking at things from a unicorn's point of view,. a fire-breathing dragon's point of view, the Flying Spaghetti Monster's point of view.

[Plane]

=========================================
After God was through with creating the Garden of Eden, he said "This is good." He did NOT say "they'll be ready after several thousand years".

He didn't say this is finished either.   

Or so the Bible says. If the Bible is the word of God, then you have to accept it as that. I don't.

I don't either, that is I don't need to accept your version of what the scripture states, I need to seek the truth starting with prayer and scripture then every other thing I can find out. 

Perhaps some of it could be considered a hypothesis, but not all of it.

And no, I know of the Black Sea Flood because of archaeologists who have surveyed ruins under water there that were submerged by a flood.

Why do you think they were looking?   

The Biblical scribe said that GO flooded the entire Earth. If he was divinely inspired, he was still wrong.

Oh, is this an artifact of language? Or just reason to think that the statements are not absolutely literal? Contrary to popular belief amoung athiests there are few who beleive the entire bible is absolutely litterally expressed.

To look at things from God's point of view, one must assume that there is a God. Otherwise, it is like looking at things from a unicorn's point of view,. a fire-breathing dragon's point of view, the Flying Spaghetti Monster's point of view.

I am indeed asking you to make such an assumption, and no more than a mere assumption can it ever be , Gods real POV includes knowing everything, which neither of us can hope for. Assuming that we can understand a small part of the picture is something that you and I are both already doing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why do you think they were looking?   

According to the National Geographic articles that I have read, the Bible was not involved. They were looking for sunken ships, just as they have done in the Mediterranean. They discovered that there are two layers of water in the Black Sea., and that as a result, sea worms have not eaten wooden ships many centuries old. Then they found not only sunken ships, but sunken towns.

The search is still going on.

This began in serious when Russia and Ukraine opened up more to scientific exploration.

God's being omniscient is mere supposition, just like his existence.

You say you start a search for the truth with prayer, but this can also be seen as you beginning your search for the turth beginning with brainwashing yourself into belief into a possibly nonexistent entity.
 
Once you say that the Bible is not literally true, then it can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. And that is precisely what people do, which explains why there are so many sects and denominations in what is supposed to be a single true church.

One person prays for guidance, and it tells him to look to the Book of Mormon. Another prays for guidance, and he thinks it tells him to concentrate on the Book of Revelation.  Sun Myung Moon spoke with God and discovered that he was the last Messiah.

[Plane]

  It is kinda funny that you think of prayer as brainwashing, I can understand it tho because I understand you the same way.
   Do you convince yourself that scripture is foolish before you start reading any?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not try to convince myself of anything. The scientific method is to take a hypothesis and try to disprove it. If you cannot do this, it is more likely to be true.

Biblical scholarship assumes that scripture is true, even if it is somewhat absurd (like two of every animal on the Ark), and then tries to figure out how, despite any apparent absurdity, scripture can be true.

All valid scientific inquiry starts by assuming that the actual truth is unknown. It acknowledges that some of the truth may be unknowable, but it tries to ferret out all the truth anyway.

If you pray to a God before you read the scripture, you are demonstrating that you believe before you even ask any question about the scripture. You will not find valid scientific answers that way.

It is valid to read literature from the standpoint of those for whom it is written. You can read the work of the Romans and Greeks assuming that they believed X, Y and Z about Jupiter, Zeus, Ares or Mars. You can read the Bible assuming that it was written for believers of this or that, to better understand the authors, but that is literary inquiry, not scientific inquiry, as the subjects of the inquiry are the minds and points of view of the authors.

[Plane]

I do not try to convince myself of anything. The scientific method is to take a hypothesis and try to disprove it. If you cannot do this, it is more likely to be true.

Biblical scholarship assumes that scripture is true, even if it is somewhat absurd (like two of every animal on the Ark), and then tries to figure out how, despite any apparent absurdity, scripture can be true.

All valid scientific inquiry starts by assuming that the actual truth is unknown. It acknowledges that some of the truth may be unknowable, but it tries to ferret out all the truth anyway.

If you pray to a God before you read the scripture, you are demonstrating that you believe before you even ask any question about the scripture. You will not find valid scientific answers that way.

It is valid to read literature from the standpoint of those for whom it is written. You can read the work of the Romans and Greeks assuming that they believed X, Y and Z about Jupiter, Zeus, Ares or Mars. You can read the Bible assuming that it was written for believers of this or that, to better understand the authors, but that is literary inquiry, not scientific inquiry, as the subjects of the inquiry are the minds and points of view of the authors.

   Well there you go, read the scriptures as communications from God to regular people , not chemical , mathematical , scientific receipts of reproducible accuracy.
    Gods message is about the state you keep your soul , not so much accurate natural history.
      There is some scientific insight in the Bible but that is not the subject or purpose of the Bible.

      You can use a Ferrari car to plow a feild , but it would be better to use a John Deer tractor which is made for that purpose.
       You might puzzle out something about linguistics from the story of the Tower of Babel , much simpler to reference a tome intended for language study.

     It is not "scientific" to assume that there is no God , which is a hypothisis you would need Gods cooperation to prove.
      God does have a message to you , but he is not apparently intrested in browbeating you , threatening you or even overwhelming you with proof.
       Matter of fact there are dozens of scriptures that deal with the value of faith, which is what you need whether you choose to be certain of Gods nonexistance or of his existance.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What is the value of faith if you believe that the Earth is flat, and lies at the center of the Universe. What is the value of faith if you believe that mental illness is caused by demonic possession, and that the stars predict the future? If you believe these things, you will never arrive at the truth. Unless you know the truth, more truths cannot be discovered.

Take leprosy. A curse from God in the Bible. Someone assumed that it was simply a disease, caused by a bacteria. The bacteria was isolated and a way of curing it was discovered.

All worthwhile scientific discoveries begin with the assumption that nothing is known. Then you start with a hypothesis and try to disprove it. So if you wish to study God, you take his existence as a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it.