Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"

Edit: oops posted early

I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...

I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge


*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....
From what I have read, "Six day Creationsim" was the lunatic fringe before Jesus was born, people were not stupid back then, and they knew their history went back almost as long as the Bible, leaving little time for the Great Flood and the Garden. They also understood about inbreeding, and could see that Adam and Eve were not a very deep gene-pool. Further, they could see the inconsistancies and downright errors in the Scripture for themselves. Augustine complained that the Bible was unsure of Joseph's father, and couldn't agree on the date of Jesus' birth. Philo in the 1st Century AD recognised that Chapter 1&2 of Genesis contradict each other.

Nevertheless, Che, among others here, seems to think that because bits of the story don't fit it must therefore all be rubbish. This was what I objected to and why I entered the debate.