Bible-Creation-Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Now we know they - the church - were wrong in their interpretation of the bible.

And who convinced this church that heliocentrism was right in the first place?

Or at least encouraged and supported heliocentrism?

In fact, where did heliocentrism come from in the first place, if not by empirical observation?

 

[TheReasoner]

And who convinced this church that heliocentrism was right in the first place?

Or at least encouraged and supported heliocentrism?

In fact, where did heliocentrism come from in the first place, if not by empirical observation?

Your post makes very little sense. Heliocentrism came from empirical observation yes. The church believed in geocentrism at that time AV. Not heliocentrism. The church was wrong. Why do you insist you're right when there is no apparent substance to this claim?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your post makes very little sense. Heliocentrism came from empirical observation yes. The church believed in geocentrism at that time AV. Not heliocentrism. The church was wrong. Why do you insist you're right when there is no apparent substance to this claim?

-- OOPS! I mean 'geocentrism' -- sorry.

 

[Research1]

Nebuchadnezzer II didn't even rule all of the middle-East. He didn't conquer the Persians, Lydians or Egyptians just on his borders, much less the rest of the world.

Where are you getting this stuff?

They are a poe.

They claimed this in another thread.

No one serious believes that the neo-assyrian empire reached Central America.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That's what it looks like to Him from His dwelling place in His temple set in the sun, just like the Word of God states, in the original language.

Ok.

 

[Hespera]

They are a poe.

They claimed this in another thread.

No one serious believes that the neo-assyrian empire reached Central America.

it sure didnt rule China either.

 

[TheReasoner]

-- OOPS! I mean 'geocentrism' -- sorry.

It came from observations they had made. It was mostly a question of philosophy and some wrong assumptions. As a model it was flawed, was later proven wrong and eventually died. My point is that christians believed it was absolutely true and biblically confirmed that the earth is the centre of the universe. There are even verses which can easily be read to that effect. The church tried to stop scientific development because they had drawn a false conclusion from faulty and somewhat arrogant and egocentric reading of the bible.

They were wrong. The earth is not the center of anything except it's own gravity well. So my question is: Based upon what do you creationists claim absolute knowledge and infallible interpretation when there is nothing which supports your viewpoint? Read the bible a little differently and it no longer supports your conclusions while still retaining it's authority.

Am I claiming to have all the answers? No. I know I don't have them. I also know that the models theories and laws I use on a daily basis are also nought but approximations and assumptions. Compare it to two ships in a harbor. One is a paper mashie boat, the other a cruiser just back from a trip along the coast. Do I KNOW the cruiser will float when I board it? No. But I do know that the paper mashie boat will NOT. The same way I do not know that my experiments will yield the same results tomorrow as they did today, but it's a pretty safe assumption. Usually much more so than the analogy will lead one to believe.

 

[mzungu]

And who convinced this church that heliocentrism was right in the first place?

Or at least encouraged and supported heliocentrism?

In fact, where did heliocentrism come from in the first place, if not by empirical observation?

Ye GADS; AV is using scientific methodology What is happening to this world

 

[Belk]

It came from observations they had made. As a model it was flawed, was later proven wrong and eventually died. My point is that christians believed it was absolutely true and biblically confirmed that the earth is the centre of the universe. There are even verses which can easily be read to that effect. The church tried to stop scientific development because they had drawn a false conclusion from faulty and somewhat arrogant and egocentric reading of the bible.

They were wrong. The earth is not the center of anything except it's own gravity well. So my question is: Based upon what do you creationists claim absolute knowledge and infallible interpretation when there is nothing which supports your viewpoint? Read the bible a little differently and it no longer supports your conclusions while still retaining it's authority.

Am I claiming to have all the answers? No. I know I don't have them. I also know that the models theories and laws I use on a daily basis are also nought but approximations and assumptions. Compare it to two ships in a harbor. One is a paper mashie boat, the other a cruiser just back from a trip along the coast. Do I KNOW the cruiser will float when I board it? No. But I do know that the paper mashie boat will NOT. The same way I do not know that my experiments will yield the same results tomorrow as they did today, but it's a pretty safe assumption. Usually much more so than the analogy will lead one to believe.

No no no. You are talking to AV. See in AV's world anything that the church got wrong ever was because scientists told them the wrong info. Even if it was way back before anybody ever even thought of the scientific method it must have been a scientist who got it wrong.

 

[TheReasoner]

No no no. You are talking to AV. See in AV's world anything that the church got wrong ever was because scientists told them the wrong info. Even if it was way back before anybody ever even thought of the scientific method it must have been a scientist who got it wrong.

Well, back then the distinction scientist/theologian/philosophist wasn't really present to the same degree as it is now. Look at the old philosophers who set down the paradigms of that age. Aristotle covered many subjects, Including everything from poetry and politics via zoology to physics. Not to mention spirituality and philosophy. His views were very influential in the churh and everywhere else for that matter. Ptolemaios was pretty similar in that he covered many subjects.

People like St. Augustine and others often thought in the same patterns, and reasoned the same way. If AV goes on insisting scientists were to blame for the fanatical adherence to a toppled paradigm he doesn't understand much of what was going on. In part because such would indicate a significant failure to realize the church's involvement in the science of that day. It's not the geocentric model that is worthy of criticism, it was a model derived from very little data, no equipment and poorly developed mathematical background. It was wrong, but I am sure we're quite mistaken about a lot today as well*.
No, my criticism is of grabbing hold of a paradigm and labeling it God's will or God's perfectly understood design. Not only is that incredibly arrogant, it elevates one's own understanding to that of God, and eliminates the need for further learning and of critical thought. It is extremely harmful.



*No AV that does not give any credence to creationism. Creationism as you promote it is not a possibility because it has been falsified. Just as the various geocentric models have been

 

[AV1611VET]

Based upon what do you creationists claim absolute knowledge and infallible interpretation when there is nothing which supports your viewpoint?

It's called faith, guardian -- a word that I see you're quite familiar with.

And the more evidence-to-the-contrary, the more our faith shines.

I believe that when the Antichrist shows up, he's going to present macroevolution (coupled with a display of abiogenesis) so effectively, he will convince almost every single person on earth.

But there are 144,000 creationists who won't agree, and they'll be martyred for their faith -- as will Moses and Elijah.

So please feel free to gather as much evidence for macroevolution as you can possibly find, then we'll show you what real faith can do with it.

 

[Jaxy H]

It's called faith, guardian -- a word that I see you're quite familiar with.

And the more evidence-to-the-contrary, the more our faith shines.

I believe that when the Antichrist shows up, he's going to present macroevolution (coupled with a display of abiogenesis) so effectively, he will convince almost every single person on earth.

But there are 144,000 creationists who won't agree, and they'll be martyred for their faith -- as will Moses and Elijah.

So please feel free to gather as much evidence for macroevolution as you can possibly find, then we'll show you what real faith can do with it.

Whoa. I am new here and I am surprised by the level of animosity.

AV, don't you think that the earth reveals God's glory just as His Word does? What the earth reveals to scientists about the ancient origins of the universe must in the end come to the same place as the Bible does, which is to Truth. There is no reason to think that simply because the Creation Story is told as a general background for our faith that it has to be literal in every particular, is there? I think when we make statements like, " And the more evidence-to-the-contrary, the more our faith shines," we actually look as if we prize ignorance rather than excellence. Faith isn't anti-intellectual in any way; rather, it will win through to real Truth just as science must, eventually, if it is honest.

Perhaps I misunderstand where you're coming from ...

 

[TheReasoner]

It's called faith, guardian -- a word that I see you're quite familiar with.

And the more evidence-to-the-contrary, the more our faith shines.

I believe that when the Antichrist shows up, he's going to present macroevolution (coupled with a display of abiogenesis) so effectively, he will convince almost every single person on earth.

So please feel free to gather as much evidence for macroevolution as you can possibly find, then we'll show you what real faith can do with it.

No. That's not faith. It's absurdity. Faith is humbly accepting reality and glorifying God for what is, not ignoring reality and insisting that it is false. Not substituting reality for what is not due to fear or closemindedness.

Walking out into a shooting gallery insisting that neither guns nor bullets exist is absurd, and insanely stupid. Whereas being in a warzone and trusting God to see you through despite the harsh reality war is, that is faith.

Denying God's creation's validity because it doesn't fit your wishes for what it should be isn't faith either. I'd say it's pretty much opposite of faith.

Delusion is not faith, AV.

But there are 144,000 creationists who won't agree, and they'll be martyred for their faith -- as will Moses and Elijah.

Okay. Now I'm very close to calling you on blasphemy here. You say they will be killed for being creationists, not for following Christ, for loving where others hate, for supporting the weak and speaking up for love, compassion and mercy? You're ACTUALLY saying that salvation is bought through DELUSION?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi there! Nice to meet you!

Whoa. I am new here and I am surprised by the level of animosity.

They aren't that bad!

AV, don't you think that the earth reveals God's glory just as His Word does?

Yes, and the two should not contradict each other.

What the earth reveals to scientists about the ancient origins of the universe must in the end come to the same place as the Bible does, which is to Truth.

It does -- but how is it they understand the Truth of the 'ancient origins of the universe', when they claim that Truth doesn't exist, or tomorrow's paradigms will be different?

In addition, how is it they "understand" the Truth that the universe shows, but miss the Truth of the Scriptures?

Doesn't that strike you as a little ironic?

If they understand the Truth of God so much -- thanks to the universe -- how's come Jesus is everything but what He claims to be?

There is one particular thing they called Him years ago in a thread that was totally shut down -- that I won't even repeat to my wife; and it's even the name of a candy bar!

You'd think, if they have been studying God's Truth so much, they would be telling us what the Bible says -- not the other way around.

Instead, the Bible is ... well ... nevermind.

I could go on for hours on this subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is humbly accepting reality and glorifying God for what is, not ignoring reality and insisting that it is false.

I don't need a definition of faith, thank you very much.

Faith is believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.

 

[TheReasoner]

I don't need a definition of faith, thank you very much.

Faith is believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.

No, that's delusion.

Faith is not about being AGAINST the evidence. Not on something like this. That's like saying a junkie has FAITH when he jumps off a building believing he can fly. He has a delusional belief, not faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that's delusion.

And that's exactly what Paul was accused of, wasn't it?

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

 

[Research1]

*No AV that does not give any credence to creationism. Creationism as you promote it is not a possibility because it has been falsified. Just as the various geocentric models have been

Galactocentrism has not been falsified, in fact there is a lot of evidence that our galaxy is in the centre of the universe.

Galactocentricity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show

 

[TheReasoner]

Hi there! Nice to meet you!

They aren't that bad!

Yes, and the two should not contradict each other.

It does -- but how is it they understand the Truth of the 'ancient origins of the universe', when they claim that Truth doesn't exist, or tomorrow's paradigms will be different?

In addition, how is it they "understand" the Truth that the universe shows, but miss the Truth of the Scriptures?

Doesn't that strike you as a little ironic?

If they understand the Truth of God so much -- thanks to the universe -- how's come Jesus is everything but what He claims to be?

There is one particular thing they called Him years ago in a thread that was totally shut down -- that I won't even repeat to my wife; and it's even the name of a candy bar!

You'd think, if they have been studying God's Truth so much, they would be telling us what the Bible says -- not the other way around.

Instead, the Bible is ... well ... nevermind.

I could go on for hours on this subject.

AV, why do you think you read the bible infallibly? I am not saying the bible is not from God. I am not saying it doesn't have authority. I am saying all available evidence points to you being wrong, including our belief in God's nature as loving and non deceiving.

You say you have understood the scriptures. Why then do so many christians disagree with your interpretation? Why does your interpretation not match reality if the universe should not contradict the bible? Why do many Christians (most?) interpret it differently from you? Are you infallible? Isn't the "faith" you promote in your OWN infallibility, not God's?

If your interpretation is not the only one (and it isn't), the universe and most serious theologians agree that your interpretation is wrong why should we believe YOU above what God has made? It's not at odds with the bible, only your interpretation.

And I think the animosity she pointed to was yours, not ours by the way.

 

[TheReasoner]

And that's exactly what Paul was accused of, wasn't it?

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Fallacious. This was about spiritual matters, not scientific.