Garden of Eden

[Tinker Grey]

It's as fresh today as it was when it was first written.

That is to say, not.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I didn't pay as close attention to the date on the thread as I should have. Is this going to start another skirmish?

It might, but it will only be with the one who necro'ed the thread, not with those of us who missed the date or replied later. Don't worry about it, just please do not follow AV's example and start necroing threads. If you see an old thread that has a point that interests you, just start a new one so we do not waste our time reading through years old materials.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you see an old thread that has a point that interests you, just start a new one so we do not waste our time reading through years old materials.

Ya --- you might learn something.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Yes, I do have a point.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with science. All it has to have is a shelf-life beyond six months, and those who are accustomed to changing with the weather will shelve it and have nothing to do with it anymore; no matter what the question is.

On the other hand, true doctrine never dies or changes. It's as fresh today as it was when it was first written.

Yes, science changes. This is because, unlike your preferred book of mythology, science improves its models, theories etc. with new evidence.

 

[Danyc]

Science changes, and gets more accurate with each change. Each change in science is caused by a change in understanding. Thus, in science, change is good.

 

[Danyc]

Science changes, and gets more accurate with each change. Each change in science is caused by a change in understanding. Thus, in science, change is good.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, science changes. This is because, unlike your preferred book of mythology, science improves its models, theories etc. with new evidence.

That's because it rules God out, then starts with its own method of universe formation, then brags that "tomorrow, we'll pwn today's science."

Would you fire me if my job was to produce the Periodic Table of the Elements, and I showed you just Hydrogen, and told you tomorrow I'll have Helium, and the next day I'll have... etc.?

After all, why fire me if every day I'm improving on yesterday's work?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science changes, and gets more accurate with each change. Each change in science is caused by a change in understanding. Thus, in science, change is good.

Science will never catch up to God though. Man's lifespan is something like 77 years? When you can duplicate God's science (i.e. 120 years) --- then, and only then, can you brag.

 

[anonymous1515]

That's because it rules God out, then starts with its own method of universe formation, then brags that "tomorrow, we'll pwn today's science."

Would you fire me if my job was to produce the Periodic Table of the Elements, and I showed you just Hydrogen, and told you tomorrow I'll have Helium, and the next day I'll have... etc.?

I wouldn't fire you. If in several days you could go from not knowing any elements to discovering a whole bunch of previously unknown ones, I would probably give you a raise.

After all, why fire me if every day I'm improving on yesterday's work?

Indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't fire you. If in several days you could go from not knowing any elements to discovering a whole bunch of previously unknown ones, I would probably give you a raise.

I said "to produce the Periodic table of the elements."

In other words, I'm just a printing company making posters.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

That's because it rules God out, then starts with its own method of universe formation, then brags that "tomorrow, we'll pwn today's science."

Would you fire me if my job was to produce the Periodic Table of the Elements, and I showed you just Hydrogen, and told you tomorrow I'll have Helium, and the next day I'll have... etc.?

After all, why fire me if every day I'm improving on yesterday's work?

So you are saying you would fire God if he did not teach science to people in need of theology?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are saying you would fire God if he did not teach science to people in need of theology?

Curiouser and curiouser.

What?

 

[Gracchus]

There are a number of issues with the account based on archaeological evidence in the Americas and genetic analysis (the Out of Africa concept) among other things, ...

This has nothing to do with science and you know it. It was a question regarding personal opinion on a Biblical account. If I ever thought that you wanted to be taken seriously, I no longer do so.

I agree it has nothing to do with science. So why did you bring up archaeology and genetics?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I said "to produce the Periodic table of the elements."

In other words, I'm just a printing company making posters.

Yes, I would fire you. But that's a horrible analogy to science. We already have a periodic table of the elements. Science is in the business of discovering new things, not printing out copies of what we already know.

 

[Cabal]

Yes, I do have a point.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with science. All it has to have is a shelf-life beyond six months, and those who are accustomed to changing with the weather will shelve it and have nothing to do with it anymore; no matter what the question is.

On the other hand, true doctrine never dies or changes. It's as fresh today as it was when it was first written.

Like "embedded age?"

Who else do I know of that believes that? Oh, that's right, noone.

Is this doctrine 6000 years old? No? Too bad.

How many schisms has Christianity had over what "true doctrine" is so far?

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, I do have a point.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with science. All it has to have is a shelf-life beyond six months, and those who are accustomed to changing with the weather will shelve it and have nothing to do with it anymore; no matter what the question is.

On the other hand, true doctrine never dies or changes. It's as fresh today as it was when it was first written.

If that were the case, why does you faith icon say 'Baptist', a relative newcomer, rather than one of the older demoninations like Orthodox, Catholic or Coptic?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Yes, I do have a point.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with science. All it has to have is a shelf-life beyond six months, and those who are accustomed to changing with the weather will shelve it and have nothing to do with it anymore; no matter what the question is.

On the other hand, true doctrine never dies or changes. It's as fresh today as it was when it was first written.

True doctrine never changes hi, well how about this from the worlds largest Christian church.

Vatican admits Galileo was right

Last week, 359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office. The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith, but was wrong.

LINK

or this

Creationist do believe in evolution, even if they do introduce caveats

The common creationist argument citing the difference between microevolution and macroevolution holds that, although microevolution is clearly observable, macroevolution is not observable, and therefore requires a leap of faith. Virtually all scientists, however, agree on the existence of macroevolutionary processes — although they might argue about the actual processes themselves — and most would say that the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is a fabricated one. In the most common theories of evolution, macroevolution is simply a large collection of microevolutionary changes that accumulate over time to the point at which they cause speciation.

 

[MoonLancer]

On the other hand, true doctrine never dies or changes. It's as fresh today as it was when it was first written.

if by fresh, you mean reinterpreted to fit the cultural experience, then sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

If that were the case, why does you faith icon say 'Baptist', a relative newcomer, rather than one of the older demoninations like Orthodox, Catholic or Coptic?

Which faith icon would Elizabeth's son use?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Which faith icon would Elizabeth's son use?

Same as Mary's son: a Star of David. Your (as usual, nonexistent) point?

(Not that you'll see this, but it was just too tempting.)