Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[BCP1928]

It's actually kind of relief to see some realization that the term creationist does not necessarily imply biblical creationist!

It's also a relief to see that you finally acknowledge a point we have been trying to make in this forum for years.

 

[Roderick Spode]

What in Genesis is "perfectly compatible" besodes things like " rain" ?

It most likely wouldn't seem compatible with you since as I understand it, you're an atheist. There wouldn't be much for you to consider since your view is that there is no God.

It might have helped though if you answered that question I asked:

Do you feel that science is the only method in finding/discovering truth?

 

[BCP1928]

It most likely wouldn't seem compatible with you since as I understand it, you're an atheist. There wouldn't be much for you to consider since your view is that there is no God.

It might have helped though if you answered that question I asked:

Do you feel that science is the only method in finding/discovering truth?

Science is the best way we have come up with for determining the nature of material reality as reflected by empirical evidence.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The Dover Trial, that confirmed that ID was a disguise for creationism, and therefore not legal to teach in public schools?

Well, yes. That particular trial.

But of course if you understand the terms creationist, creation, creationism to not be limited to biblical creationism, then the disguise would appear to be broader than just Christianity in disguise. For instance, as you referenced, Islamic religion was not an issue in the trial. Neither was any other religion, or deism.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Science is the best way we have come up with for determining the nature of material reality as reflected by empirical evidence.

Is material reality the only reality?

 

[BCP1928]

Is material reality the only reality?

No*, but it is the only reality which science is equipped to investigate. It offers us no conclusions on any other kind, or even whether other realities even exist.

*That, of course, is only my opinion, arrived at by other means than science. Other's mileage may vary

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is the best way we have come up with for determining the nature of material reality as reflected by empirical evidence.

And the Bible is the best way to judge it all.

 

[AV1611VET]

No*, but it is the only reality which science is equipped to investigate. It offers us no conclusions on any other kind, or even whether other realities even exist.

Science is myopic.

 

[Astrid]

It most likely wouldn't seem compatible with you since as I understand it, you're an atheist. There wouldn't be much for you to consider since your view is that there is no God.

It might have helped though if you answered that question I asked:

Do you feel that science is the only method in finding/discovering truth?

Of course not. Science doesn't even do " Truth".

Now, no excuses, what is compstible?
I didn't ask about what's compatible with me.
With nature, as we observe it. It's not a q about me.

What in Genesis matches obsevable reality?
" the flood "?

 

[Astrid]

Is material reality the only reality?

Only one that is not imaginary.

 

[Astrid]

Well, yes. That particular trial.

But of course if you understand the terms creationist, creation, creationism to not be limited to biblical creationism, then the disguise would appear to be broader than just Christianity in disguise. For instance, as you referenced, Islamic religion was not an issue in the trial. Neither was any other religion, or deism.

News of the obvious and well known.

 

[AV1611VET]

What in Genesis matches obsevable reality?

Stellar timekeeping.

 

[The Barbarian]

But of course if you understand the terms creationist, creation, creationism to not be limited to biblical creationism, then the disguise would appear to be broader than just Christianity in disguise. For instance, as you referenced, Islamic religion was not an issue in the trial. Neither was any other religion, or deism.

Yes, but the decision pointed out that it was precisely because ID, as presented in the trial, is a religion, and therefore impermissible just like other religions (like Christianity, Islam, etc.)

The particular form that was imposed on the students of the Dover School District was creationism based on a revision of Christian belief.

 

[The Barbarian]

And the Bible is the best way to judge it all.

We can test that assumption by seeing whether science or faith has been better in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

No contest. But religion isn't for those things. Just as science is not a good way to find God.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can test that assumption by seeing whether science or faith has been better in things like engineering, medicine, etc.

I'm sure the Bible will give the green light to engineering medicine, etc., as long as engineering, medicine, and etc. don't contradict the Bible.

 

[dlamberth]

You're implying that your distrust in written document concerning creation as reason to imply intellectual dishonesty amongst biblical creationists. And you use the words ancient and nomads which I assume to imply unreliability. At what exact year do you draw the line at between ancient and non-ancient? At what year in history do you say "since written in year (fill in the blank), it's now not too old?" And what makes a nomadic tribe less reliable than say, writings from a king (like Solomon) or an emperor?

Creation stories set the ground floor of most all religions. Way in the past the Creation story that has come to us through the Bible was the belief of a nomadic tribe of middle-eastern desert dwellers. Religions are built on the religions before them. So no telling where the story's we find in the Bible originally came from. Today we've gained a lot of actual knowledge of the Earth and the Universe. A new Creation story is being written based on what God actually Created and not on ancient stories of unknown origin.

I have no time line for ancient and non-ancient. But clearly creation stories that are some 3000 or more years old is ancient.

Unless the book of Genesis breaks the law of non-contradiction, then the creation account given in Genesis is perfectly compatible with what we observe in nature today. Like AV said, "variety is the spice of life".

It's when Genesis is taken literately and as absolute fact over what God's own Creation as Created by God and signed off with His own signature is where it seems to me intellectual dishonesty has passed through the door. The Earth can not lie. The Earth shows us a very long time line of existence for instance, but to hang onto ancient 6000 year beliefs rather than what the Earth is actually showing us, is to my eyes at least, is not only being intellectually dishonest, but also dishonest to what God Created. It's the same as saying that the Earth is lying. Where's the honesty in that?

I marvel at the variety of animal life as much as you.

I suspect where we may differ is that beyond variety I also experience animals and everything else as an activity of God. That for me has a way of changing the whole landscape towards the sacred. And because I see Him everywhere I look, God becomes more of a reality in my life

Out of curiosity, do you shun ancient Hindu documents concerning panentheism?

I'm drawn to the Christian Mystics and others of the Wisdom tradition of the various religions. My library is pretty inclusive. It's interesting how they often found themselves as Panentheist at some level.

Most do not know about Panenthesim or even the word. Interesting that you brought it up.

 

[dlamberth]

Which is an error. It is perfectly possible to be an intellectually honest YE creationist.

How is that possible when the Earth is telling us a very different story? Honest question.

 

[Roderick Spode]

No*, but it is the only reality which science is equipped to investigate. It offers us no conclusions on any other kind, or even whether other realities even exist.

Or whether or not other realities intertwine with our material reality.

*That, of course, is only my opinion, arrived at by other means than science. Other's mileage may vary

If we mix science and other means, we'd have a hybrid?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Of course not. Science doesn't even do " Truth".

I don't think it avoids it.

Now, no excuses, what is compstible?
I didn't ask about what's compatible with me.
With nature, as we observe it. It's not a q about me.

Well if you were open to the possibility of the God of the Bible existing, as opposed to a random or deistic (impersonal) creator, the concept of creating a man and woman as mother and father to all of humanity is logical. If there were a modern day nuclear war that left only 2 survivors, a man and a woman, they could repopulate the world. A very natural and logical phenomenon. And of course the animal kingdom is subject to us. God allows (actually endorses) human creativity (naming animals and new species), designing architecture, artistic endeavor, etc.

What in Genesis matches obsevable reality?
" the flood "?

The (global) flood, and Noah's ark are not problems in that anything God mandates, or answers in a prayer deemed impossible require a miracle......the supernatural. The creation of the universe is an act requiring the supernatural in the context of God being spirit. To claim a global flood impossible would be contradictory in light of miraculous/supernatural creation.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Only one that is not imaginary.

I believe God created all things; does that make me a creationist? The salient difference seems to be that diamberth and I are good with the way He did it.

"I have no problem accepting that as a possibility.
Yec is an insult to human intelligence and to God,
if such there be."

Hmmmmm...