First and foremost, neither the Bible, nor Christianity ever claimed the Earth was flat (Read Ikesters post #12), so when you hear an atheist make this claim, have them provide you the references. Tell them to provide the scriptural claims… They won’t be able to, so they’ll either dither or prevaricate on the discussion because they aren’t linguists, they’ll totally butcher the definitions out of ignorance, or they’ll just leave because they have no real arguement. Now, there was a time the majority consensus of the human race thought the flat Earth belief was true, there-again, there was a time many people thought the Earth rested on the shoulders of Atlas, or turtles as well. But, in fact, there are many Old Testament scriptures that claim a spherical (or circuitous) Earth, so the atheist argument fails anyway, but they will attempt to argue from ignorance against such scriptures.
I certainly won't claim I'm any kind of expert on the bible, but I do recall that this verse seems to indeed imply that the writers of the bible may have thought the earth was flat. In Matthew 4:8, "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." Now I might be taking this out of context, I am not sure, but on a flat earth it is very possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth from a high enough altitude. It is however impossible for a spherical earth. I would like to hear an explanation of this quote, I haven't heard any as of yet.
Secondly, Dinosaurs in no way refute the seven days of creation. In fact Genesis applied provides for Dinosaurs being created on days five and six. The ONLY pseudo-evidences the atheist can claim for old Earth in star light (which has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the Earth), and radio-metric dating, which is flawed at best; so that argument fails as well.
Well, star light can show that the universe is older than 6,000 years, and thus we would need a different alternative from the big bang to explain why our planet took such a short time to form compared to almost every other planet in the universe.
I would also respectfully disagree that radiometric dating is flawed at best. If you would like, you could read on this post. It is a very long one, but it goes in detail on how radiometric dating works.http://www.rationals...rous-t1783.html
TL;DR if we only use 2 assumption, the first being that radionuclide decay at a constant rate, and that we can measure 20 half lives, using samarium 146, which has a half-life of 103 million years (103,000,000), we can then assume that we can measure at most 20 X 103 million, we can get a maximum age of 2,060,000,000, or 2.06 billion years. The second assumption is this: we can see samarium being produced in solar furnaces, we can find some of its decay products on earth, and there is absolutely no reason to assume the earth was devoid of samarium, that would mean that at a minimum the earth is 2.06 billion years old. If the earth really were 6,000 years old, there would be plenty of samarium 146 left on the planet, but that is not the case. To arrive at an age of 4.5 billion years of age is merely refinement of the radionuclide dating process.
Thirdly, where does the Bible claim the Earth as the center of the physical universe? Once again, the atheist will either argue from ignorance, or simply leave because of lack of information.
I do not know, but I still find it interesting that some people do claim that the earth is the center of the universe (they also sometimes argue that it is flat) using their holy book, which is invariably either the bible or the quran.
Fourthly, YES we ARE the only intelligent life in the universe! When the atheist attempt to use this argument, tell them to provide empirical evidence for ANY other intelligence in the universe! They will argue that we have not yet found any other intelligent life, but that does not mean that there is none; But it doesn’t mean the there IS any either! So the atheist that makes that claim believes on a prayer that one day, hopefully and prayerfully, some intelligent beings will show up and prove them right… This is just another type of religion, because it is extremely “faith-based”. And people like Carl Sagan (pictured) were the high priests of such orthodoxy.
While nobody can prove that there are indeed intelligent life-forms elsewhere in the universe, nobody can prove either that we are the only ones. This might be a black or white issue, a yes/no answer, but we cannot say either yes or no, so we have to consider the probabilities. If we are indeed the result of a special act of creation by God, then the odds are not looking good, as life cannot develop without some divine input. However, who is to say that God did not create a second species elsewhere in the universe? After all, god moves in mysterious ways.
If one takes the atheistic approach, we are merely the result of chemical interactions on the prebiotic earth, on one planet in one solar system of billions in a single galaxy and in one galaxy out of the billions of galaxies in the universe. There is no reason to assume that life did not happen anywhere else, since obviously it happened on earth. In any case, until we can detect (SETI) alien life forms, or that they come to contact us, we have no way of finding which answer is best.
Fifthly, Charles Darwin doesn’t prove we weren’t created by God; Charles Darwin doesn’t prove anything. So tell the atheist to “Please” provide the evidence that macro-evolution disproves God! Macro-evolution still requires something/someone to get it started; therefore macro-evolution, for many reasons needs God! But there is absolutely NO empirical evidence FOR macro-evolution, therefore macro-evolution requires massive amounts of faith to believe in. This is just another type of religion, because it is extremely “faith-based”.
I’ll tell you what… Just tell them to come here and attempt their arguments…
I agree, Darwin doesn't disprove special creation by God. For all we know God might be pulling the strings behind evolution.
As for evolution (macro and micro) disproving God, it only disproves a literal interpretation of the bible.
'Macro'evolution doesn't require anyone to start it any more than 'micro'evolution does. It is also not a religious belief system in that it holds no morals, no principals, no religious texts, nor does it have any aspect of organized religion. 'Macro'evolution is an object of study by scientists, who use fossil records and genetics to try to understand our evolutionary history. If God did indeed create us, do you not think it would be obvious in the fossil record? Do you not trust scientists to go where the evidence leads them?
And finally, I'd just like to say I'm not trying to have an argument or a debate so much as a friendly discussion to compare our knowledge and viewpoints