God Made The World In Seven Days

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well as it wasn't by the judge, it doesn't really matter.

Wrong, the judge saw how they were caught. It was part of the trial. I cannot remember exactly where, but in the presentation of the evidence that showed ID was creationism was the first time in the trial that the judge reacted visibly to evidence. It was the point where the evolution side knew that they were winning. It definitely affected his opinion. You didn't watch the video that you asked for, did you?
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Your opinion which you have NOT supported. IMO it's a reputable site.
Really? Let's take a look at one of the "quotes" in question. I'll even do the hard work for you.

Your site claims Steven J. Gould says this:

"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." [Gould, Stephen J., “The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology,” Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7.]

Notice the fact that they have capitalized the word "We" and placed a period at the end of the sentence. This implies (well not really but trying to be generous here) that this is the full and complete sentence by Gould. It is not.

The full and complete sentence is this;

"Just as we have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off up on an imperfect fossil record, so too have we long recognized the rapid, if not sudden, turnover of faunas in episodes of mass extinction."

As you can see, the full and complete sentence does not start with the word "We" nor does it end with the word "record." So that is two lies from your website in just one quote. Not to mention that doesn't take into account the context of what Gould was saying. We can get into that if you like (or you can read about it here Quote #31). But I've already shown you that your "reputable site" has lied about the quote itself.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Well you can use all the imagination you want, and obviously scars would not be on a day old person.
Our planet however does have scars. Scars that it should not have if the earth was only 6,000 years old. The K-T impact left a layer of iridium in sedimentary rock. In many places that layer of iridium infused rock has millions of years of sedimentary rock of top it.

There is absolutely no reason that layer should exist that far down in the geologic record if the earth were only 6,000 years old.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
NOT what Judge Jones said, so I'll take his word for it.
Of course there is bias if nothing religious is allowed. Excluding anything religious is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Do you believe that all religions should be taught in schools or just Christianity?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Which religions do you want taught in science class?
 
Upvote 0

Affliction

Active Member
Jun 26, 2013
271
9
Connecticut
✟470.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
But the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own "infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing.

The Bible in its current compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by individual religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be considered divine.

They are just like modern writers, making commentary and analysis, who just happened to have their works assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words. They refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever will be added to the canon.


Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim 3:16), also clearly acknowledged that some of his own writings were NOT, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12

"But to the rest speak I, NOT THE LORD..." (emphasis added); and 2 Cor 11:17 "That which I speak, I speak [it] NOT AFTER THE LORD..." (emphasis added).


It is not necessary for good Christians to accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God in order to understand and believe in Jesus' teachings of universal compassion. After all, the early Christians themselves did not have an "infallible Bible" to carry around with them -- it wasn't even compiled until centuries later. Just as we gain insights and understanding from modern writers and commentators of today, without claiming that they are divine and infallible, we can gain insight and understanding from ancient writers, as long as we consider their works for what they are, with critical thinking and common sense -- not just blind faith.


We should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational, but many times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic, and the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their merits -- as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything more.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Really? Let's take a look at one of the "quotes" in question. I'll even do the hard work for you.

Your site claims Steven J. Gould says this:

"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." [Gould, Stephen J., “The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology,” Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7.]

Notice the fact that they have capitalized the word "We" and placed a period at the end of the sentence. This implies (well not really but trying to be generous here) that this is the full and complete sentence by Gould. It is not.

The full and complete sentence is this;

"Just as we have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off up on an imperfect fossil record, so too have we long recognized the rapid, if not sudden, turnover of faunas in episodes of mass extinction."

As you can see, the full and complete sentence does not start with the word "We" nor does it end with the word "record." So that is two lies from your website in just one quote. Not to mention that doesn't take into account the context of what Gould was saying. We can get into that if you like (or you can read about it here Quote #31). But I've already shown you that your "reputable site" has lied about the quote itself.

Did the full quote change the context of what was quoted? No.
Did they take the quote OUT of context? No.
So you beef is that they didn't type...before and after the quote they did type?
GMAB.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
In Britain religious education is compulsory, but it is not taught in science class.

Nor should it be, and in the Separate/Catholic Schools in Canada it isn't either. What is funny is that the tax dollars still go to each schools boards, so obviously Canadian Laws about education are no where near as biased as the
U.S. ones are. IMO the problem with 1st Amendments issues in the U.S. is how the spirit and letter of those laws are looked at. When they were implemented, the intent was much different than they are today, and obviously there is no will in the U.S. to makes further amendments to account for modern attitudes and societal norms.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
But the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own "infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing.

The Bible in its current compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by individual religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be considered divine.

They are just like modern writers, making commentary and analysis, who just happened to have their works assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words. They refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever will be added to the canon.


Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim 3:16), also clearly acknowledged that some of his own writings were NOT, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12




It is not necessary for good Christians to accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God in order to understand and believe in Jesus' teachings of universal compassion. After all, the early Christians themselves did not have an "infallible Bible" to carry around with them -- it wasn't even compiled until centuries later. Just as we gain insights and understanding from modern writers and commentators of today, without claiming that they are divine and infallible, we can gain insight and understanding from ancient writers, as long as we consider their works for what they are, with critical thinking and common sense -- not just blind faith.


We should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational, but many times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic, and the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their merits -- as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything more.

Paul's comments in 2 Tim 3:16 are about the OT, as the NT was being written, unknown to him. Opinion is not wrong and a personally called Apostles of Jesus, Paul did have reason to be heeded. Thankfully he was honest enough to point out it was HIS opinion and not a directive from God. He knew the difference. Many today don't.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Our planet however does have scars. Scars that it should not have if the earth was only 6,000 years old. The K-T impact left a layer of iridium in sedimentary rock. In many places that layer of iridium infused rock has millions of years of sedimentary rock of top it.
There is absolutely no reason that layer should exist that far down in the geologic record if the earth were only 6,000 years old.

This is comparing apples to oranges and using limited human understanding to explain a supreme being.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Do you believe that all religions should be taught in schools or just Christianity?

If schools have a SCIENCE program, then they should have a RELIGION program. IF schools only want to teach FACT, then ALL theory should be eliminated.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If schools have a SCIENCE program, then they should have a RELIGION program. IF schools only want to teach FACT, then ALL theory should be eliminated.

Do you know what is meant by "scientific theory"?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.