At times like this...

[Jamdoc]

Sorry, that is dishonest. Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark story? The event that we know did not happen. If you believe that then you do believe that God lied. And that might affect your judgement.



That is a poor excuse. The problem with approaching the Bible literally is that one is stating that God is incompetent, evil, and dishonest. It is not good theology.




But Moses was not a real character. I would suggest that you study the history of the Bible a bit. Instead of making rationalizations to maintain false beliefs it is wiser to try to learn what actually happened in the past. Treating much of the Bible as morality tales is the only way to save it at times.

Last person I'm going to listen to about God is a professed Atheist.

There is a huge difference between not telling us every single little detail that we likely wouldn't even understand, and being dishonest. God told Moses what he needed to know for his purposes. He didn't give Moses a crash course on abstract math, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology that he'd need to know to understand every little detail.

 

[Occams Barber]

Last person I'm going to listen to about God is a professed Atheist.

"You're an atheist. What would you know" is one of the weaker responses we often get from theists who are feeling their back against the wall. This is not deep theology we're discussing here.
While I'm not an example, you will also find that many atheists are ex-Christians who are well versed in the Bible.

There is a huge difference between not telling us every single little detail that we likely wouldn't even understand, and being dishonest. God told Moses what he needed to know for his purposes. He didn't give Moses a crash course on abstract math, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology that he'd need to know to understand every little detai

If God had not chosen to hide info (as you suggest) then the people of Moses time would not need a crash course in everything. Like our society the info would have been absorbed gradually and the expertise spread. Like our society much of the information would be useful. Not all information is harmful. Your suggestion about God withholding info makes no sense.
OB

 

[Jamdoc]

"You're an atheist. What would you know" is one of the weaker responses we often get from theists who are feeling their back against the wall. This is not deep theology we're discussing here.
While I'm not an example, you will also find that many atheists are ex-Christians who are well versed in the Bible.



If God had not chosen to hide info (as you suggest) then the people of Moses time would not need a crash course in everything. Like our society the info would have been absorbed gradually and the expertise spread. Like our society much of the information would be useful. Not all information is harmful. Your suggestion about God withholding info makes no sense.
OB

It makes perfect sense when you see what we've done with the knowledge we've acquired ourselves. We'd be even more irresponsible about it if it was just given to us. He withholds some knowledge because we are CHILDREN still. We can't even handle being told "hey don't eat fruit from this tree, it'll kill you".
and really, as the scripture says. Withholding some knowledge is part of what sets God aside from man. It's TO HIS GLORY to be omniscient, where we are not. The glory of kings, you know, in those days what they'd consider wise men, Kings, is to seek knowledge for ourselves, to investigate things, both the universe around us, which bears witness to God, and scripture, which bears witness to God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Last person I'm going to listen to about God is a professed Atheist.

There is a huge difference between not telling us every single little detail that we likely wouldn't even understand, and being dishonest. God told Moses what he needed to know for his purposes. He didn't give Moses a crash course on abstract math, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology that he'd need to know to understand every little detail.

That is unwise. Quite often an atheist knows far more about God than the average theist.

And again, Bible scholars, many of them Christians, are the ones that will tell you that there was no Moses. The largest problem with a literal approach is that one claims that God is incompetent and evil. That is contrary to Christian belief. One does not even need the science that refutes Genesis to know this.

You probably have not looked at the story with an unbiased eye. It is very hard to do so. But if one can treat them as if they came from another religion their flaws become obvious.

 

[Ophiolite]

Last person I'm going to listen to about God is a professed Atheist.

As far as I can see - in this instance, quite far - @Subduction Zone was not talking about God, but about one interpretation of Biblical Scriptures describing the suggested relationship between God and Man. Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)

@Subduction Zone please advise if I have misinterpreted the thrust of your post.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The problem with that is that any detailed explanation of evolution leads to more questions and more confusion. It's a bottomless rabbit hole.

We all know you are easily confused. But don't make the mistake of assuming you are representative of anything other than a religious minority. Science will continue searching the "rabbit hole". Just because you cannot see an end does not mean it is bottomless - it simply means you give up too easily.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I can see - in this instance, quite far - @Subduction Zone was not talking about God, but about one interpretation of Biblical Scriptures describing the suggested relationship between God and Man. Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)

@Subduction Zone please advise if I have misinterpreted the thrust of your post.

Yes, even when I was a Christian I could see the damage that creationists were doing to the religion. Oddly creationists are very sensitive to Flat Earthers. They can see how they not only harm Christianity, but even more so they harm their beliefs. Most Flat Earthers are Christian and one of the main reasons for their beliefs is that they read the Bible very literally. In reading the Bible it never describes the Earth as a globe, but as a flat object. Again and again. They can also see how the Flat Earthers reject science irrationally and I think there is some small part of themselves that realizes that they are doing the same thing.

All to often those that accept the sciences are accused of trying to disprove God. When in reality they are merely refuting the incorrect parts of the beliefs of some. It is rather telling that so many Christians have the belief of if part of the Bible is wrong it is all wrong. That is a rather weak faith and it is also a breaking of the Second Commandment. They make a false idol of the Bible and worship it rather than their God. More than a bit ironic when one thinks about it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We all know you are easily confused. But don't make the mistake of assuming you are representative of anything other than a religious minority. Science will continue searching the "rabbit hole". Just because you cannot see an end does not mean it is bottomless - it simply means you give up too easily.

Perhaps you and other evolutionists should find out just how ignorant people are about your theory. I think you would be surprised to learn that most who accept it know little or nothing about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you and other evolutionists should find out just how ignorant people are about your theory. I think you would be surprised to learn that most who accept it know little or nothing about it.

It is true that many that accept reality are rather ignorant of how it works. Regardless of the science being discussed. The problem for creationists arise when they try to debate against the theory of evolution. To do so they have to willingly keep themselves ignorant of almost all of the sciences. There is a trope that I would like to see refuted some day. It goes "There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. Now there are honest creationists. And there are informed ones. The problem is that one cannot be both. An honest approach to the science leads to one accepting it. For most keeping oneself ignorant of even the most basic methods of how science works is the strategy to maintain belief.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps you and other evolutionists should find out just how ignorant people are about your theory. I think you would be surprised to learn that most who accept it know little or nothing about it.

I would not be in the least surprised. The depth of of ignorance that most people have about evolution is profound, including many who ineptly defend it.

However, irresponsible belief in the theory has zero relevance in regard to the accuracy and efficacy of the theory. Those positive characteristics have been consistently and frequently attested to by the work of the many thousands of scientists who do understand it and have actively contributed to it.

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps you and other evolutionists should find out just how ignorant people are about your theory. I think you would be surprised to learn that most who accept it know little or nothing about it.

And so what? Many people know little about the science they accept. Even scientists sometimes know little about science outside their own field of study. People accept evolution because they have no reason not to and are satisfied through observation of the practical applications that the real world works pretty much as scientists tell us.

There is no excuse, however, for those who wish to raise arguments against a particular branch of science to be ignorant of it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I would not be in the least surprised. The depth of of ignorance that most people have about evolution is profound, including many who ineptly defend it.

However, irresponsible belief in the theory has zero relevance in regard to the accuracy and efficacy of the theory. Those positive characteristics have been consistently and frequently attested to by the work of the many thousands of scientists who do understand it and have actively contributed to it.

That is certainly true. However knowledge of the ToE is likely not even on the list of things that most people are concerned about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no excuse, however, for those who wish to raise arguments against a particular branch of science to be ignorant of it.

I don't need to know the formula for the chemicals that are killing us to be against them. I just need to observe the damage. The problem with evolution is the misdirection it causes in regard to problem solving. Evolution offers a 'pill for that' rather than a needed change in behavior or method.

Science discovers that soil funguses provide pest and disease protection for the plant, then develops chemical fertilizers that kill the fungus. They then develop more chemicals to kill the pests and diseases that attack the defenseless plants. They then develop plants that are dependent on certain chemicals to survive. Then when mankind becomes helpless to virus attack because the food doesn't provide needed protection they scurry around trying to combine yet more chemicals to address the problem. It's an endless slide to destruction. We are alive due to chemicals, but we are not sound.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is certainly true. However knowledge of the ToE is likely not even on the list of things that most people are concerned about.

So what? The fact that most people are basically "nice" has been well demonstrated by reactions to the current epidemic. But being "nice" is hardly the same as "pushing the boundaries of knowledge". I applaud the benevolence, I regret the indolent ignorance.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't need to know the formula for the chemicals that are killing us to be against them. I just need to observe the damage. The problem with evolution is the misdirection it causes in regard to problem solving. Evolution offers a 'pill for that' rather than a needed change in behavior or method.

What "problem" does the theory of evolution misdirect us from solving?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So what? The fact that most people are basically "nice" has been well demonstrated by reactions to the current epidemic. But being "nice" is hardly the same as "pushing the boundaries of knowledge". I applaud the benevolence, I regret the indolent ignorance.

I don't see the point you are tying to make here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What "problem" does the theory of evolution misdirect us from solving?

That manmade chemistry is superior to natural chemistry. That's it's better to work against nature than with nature. Science is often 180 degrees off from where it should be. Myopia is also a weakness.

 

[Speedwell]

That manmade chemistry is superior to natural chemistry. That's it's better to work against nature than with nature. Science is often 180 degrees off from where it should be. Myopia is also a weakness.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about that issue. If anything, it would suggest that natural chemistry is more appropriate for living creatures than man-made chemistry.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about that issue. If anything, it would suggest that natural chemistry is more appropriate for living creatures than man-made chemistry.

Are you saying that the ToE is not the foundation and basis of modern science?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you saying that the ToE is not the foundation and basis of modern science?

It is a fundamental theory of biology, that's all.