Creationist defends bible and attacks straw man version of evolution

No, I disagree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can I agree with that when it isn't true. You may need to start understanding that your Bible is very wrong about a great deal of things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Glad you agree that the Bible is not generally true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that Mr. Sagan would have called dirt Stardust, if asked.

 

Interpretations of the Bible are often wrong.

 

Are you trying to save face from your blunder?

 

That would make the Bible a very useless book, indeed. Not only does it get things very wrong, it's interpretations are often wrong, as well. Why would any sane person follow it or use it as a source of information? One can learn a whole lot more from Aesop or Grimm's than they can the Bible.

 

As the Bible itself is often wrong. Once you keep that in mind, it's a lot easier to study it.

 

According to Wiki, the reasons Bruno was burned at the stake were to do with doctrinal heresy rather than his astronomical ideas.
QUOTE
Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern,[5] as was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul/reincarnation. The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.
UNQUOTE

 

Yes, he held several heretical ideas (including his heliocentric theory) that led to his demise.

 

No, I have no face to save. I make blunders and say stupid things sometimes. If I unintentionally hurt someone I apologize. I am not perfect.

I really think I was correct in my StarDust comments and Carl Sagan’s view on it. I really do regard Mr. Sagan’s StarDust and the Bible’s “dust” as the same thing.

But I am very happy if you disagree with me, that is of course your choice, and I respect and appreciate you, Q.

And I have no need to win an argument here.

 

The Bible may be wrong in some cases, there is no need for it to be inerrant. Inerrancy is unprovable.

Perhaps that will get me burned at the stake someday.

 

The Star dust as referenced by Carl Sagan and other cosmologists, refers to the pre-collapsed accretion disk from whence the Sun and planets formed.
The dust generally speaking are basically an assortment of all the elements we now find on Earth, and also denotes our Sun as a GEN 2/3 Star. Gen 1 stars of course are totally non metallic.

The dust from whence your god gathered to create man and woman, was Earth dust only, and obviously a simple fairy tale story for children. I was around 5 years old when I first heard it, with a pliable mind like most children.

 

Okay, thanks! And that is speculation.

 

Umm, no. It is a validated scientific theory based on observational data of other star systems in various stages of accretion disk stellar system formation.

 

The only person you're hurting is yourself.

Honest people would admit and own their blunders, then move on.

An argument would require some valid premises.

 

The Bible is wrong about a lot of things and should be treated for what it is, a book of fables written by ignorant people heavily steeped in myth and superstition.

 

If you believe there is some divine truth in the mysteries of the Bible, ask yourself if the people who wrote the various portions were divinely enlightened people? Why would they be at that time in history and never since??

 

So, you agree the heavy elements forming the Earth came from stars and supernovas.
Can you show a Bible quote saying that dust from stars formed the Earth?

I will know when you show me the words ''star dust'' in a quote from the Bible.

 

How is it possible for Carl Sagan to refer to you and I as being made of Stardust, but for the dirt on this planet to not be Stardust?

I think that perhaps your argument is with him.