Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

News of the obvious and well known.

I get PBS flashbacks from time to time.

 

[Astrid]

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

It can only possible for the uneducated.
The rest have no excuse.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.)

Intelligent Design is not a religion. It was considered a tool to push Christianity into public schools.

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

The problem was that it was terminology like Creation and Creationism that determined that verdict. Bertha Spahr claimed the term she found on a catalogue that read creation science was a smoking gun (the ultimate proof) of ID being Christianity in disguise. Which of course the problem being, the terminology was not meant to imply that restriction.

 

[dlamberth]

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 problem arises when the Earth itSelf is showing us that no Global flood actually happened.

 

[BCP1928]

Intelligent Design is not a religion. It was considered a tool to push Christianity into public schools.

The problem was that it was terminology like Creation and Creationism that determined that verdict. Bertha Spahr claimed the term she found on a catalogue that read creation science was a smoking gun (the ultimate proof) of ID being Christianity in disguise. Which of course the problem being, the terminology was not meant to imply that restriction.

Except that ID was being promoted by an organization with a radical Calvinist social agenda. And it does apply to all forms of creationism subscribed to by any religion which regards the theory of evolution as contrary to its dogma

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

Well there were numerous nomadic tribes along the Levant in pre-Israelite history. So there's nothing mythological about a documented history of any nomadic tribe in middle eastern history.

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

But 3,000 years from now this new creation story will be an ancient story as well.

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 think it's evident that humans have only been around for about 6,000 years.

Creating something in a mature state is not an unrealistic concept if it serves a purpose. Adam and Eve were created in a mature state as they were created for a purpose that required 2 fully mature adults. We do something similar in labs with neurons.

Who's to say God didn't have purpose in creating a mature earth? Maybe for His creative glory?

And it's not lying since He's letting everyone know through His written Word.

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

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.

I don't know much about it to be honest. I actually do recall you mentioning it in another thread.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The problem arises when the Earth itSelf is showing us that no Global flood actually happened.

For the sake of argument, if there were enough water on earth today that could cover the entire globe, what would the chances be of a/another global flood, or perpetual global floods?

 

[Ophiolite]

What I'm addressing is the idea that a biblical creationist is an intellectually dishonest person.

I actually do encourage independent thought. I'm not accusing anyone of not being a Christian for not thinking my way, or having a theistic evolutionary view.

My view is that the salvation of a human is a miracle. The creation of the universe, earth, and life is a miracle. And that there are miracles that occurred in the bible after creation affecting mankind. So in my opinion, God creating a man and woman as the mother and father of all humanity is compatible with everything in nature we observe today.

I have no issue with what you say here, except that it does not address any of the points I made in the post you are responding to.

 

[dlamberth]

For the sake of argument, if there were enough water on earth today that could cover the entire globe, what would the chances be of a/another global flood, or perpetual global floods?

I'm not understanding what that has anything to do with no evidence of a Noah type of flood. We can speculate all we want. But there was no global flood in the first place.

 

[dlamberth]

And it's not lying since He's letting everyone know through His written Word.

But one has to believe that the Earth (God's Creation) is lying when what it is showing us is claimed as not true.

 

[Astrid]

I don't think it avoids it.

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.


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.

Just flood- I did not say impossible,
I said it did not happen.

"Nature" such as you spoke of, makes
that abundantly clear.

Intelligent Design is not a religion. It was considered a tool to push Christianity into public schools.

The problem was that it was terminology like Creation and Creationism that determined that verdict. Bertha Spahr claimed the term she found on a catalogue that read creation science was a smoking gun (the ultimate proof) of ID being Christianity in disguise. Which of course the problem being, the terminology was not meant to imply that restriction.

" God" isnt a religion either. So?

We all know what the " intelligent" in ID
is supposed to be.

 

[dlamberth]

I think it's evident that humans have only been around for about 6,000 years.

What the Earth is showing us is that Human Beings have been around a LOT longer than 6000 years. Here in Oregon which is a tiny example, sites have been found of human occupancy 18,000 years ago. New Mexico, 20,000 years ago. In Australia, 50,000 years ago. In Africa, 300,000 years ago. The question that keeps popping up for me is at what point is a person being intellectually dishonest when denying what the Earth is showing us?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Except that ID was being promoted by an organization with a radical Calvinist social agenda. And it does apply to all forms of creationism subscribed to by any religion which regards the theory of evolution as contrary to its dogma

I remember discussing this with you before (which is fine), but their agenda was to influence society as a whole. So anything beyond that is mere speculation. One of the things I remember discussing with you was the humanist influence in society to remove traditional religion, and I gave you a link where they discuss humanist influence in public schools.

You seemed to be okay with that as I recall.

 

[Astrid]

What the Earth is showing us is that Human Beings have been around a LOT longer than 6000 years. Here in Oregon which is a tiny example, sites have been found of human occupancy 18,000 years ago. New Mexico, 20,000 years ago. In Australia, 50,000 years ago. In Africa, 300,000 years ago. The question that keeps popping up for me is at what point is a person being intellectually dishonest when denying what the Earth is showing us?

Willful ignorance can turn into culpable negligence.


A person who actually believes thrre a god who keeps,
score, it might behoove them to think carefully whether
It is wisecto be go spreading it about that god is a mass murderer.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I have no issue with what you say here, except that it does not address any of the points I made in the post you are responding to.

You might have to help me out a little bit more on this (like what exactly was the straw man), but yes, you are right that

"The reliability of texts is contingent on many factors. No text can be considered wholly reliable, perhaps no texts are wholly unreliable."

Unless of course they're inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I've had a fairly profound conversion, so to myself the possibility of scripture as a whole not being fully reliable is too extremely slim to consider.

My conversion was nothing like the Apostle Paul's, but if you somehow had a chance to speak with him, and he confirmed his conversion experience as accurate in scripture, wouldn't you think he'd be justified in a belief that scripture is completely reliable?

Of course I don't really know what your beliefs are, so that question could be meaningless.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I'm not understanding what that has anything to do with no evidence of a Noah type of flood. We can speculate all we want. But there was no global flood in the first place.

For there to have been a global flood would require a miracle. The act of the supernatural. So whether or not there was a global flood would probably depend on that.

Does creation in the context of panentheism involve the supernatural?

 

[BCP1928]

I remember discussing this with you before (which is fine), but their agenda was to influence society as a whole. So anything beyond that is mere speculation. One of the things I remember discussing with you was the humanist influence in society to remove traditional religion, and I gave you a link where they discuss humanist influence in public schools.

You seemed to be okay with that as I recall.

I don't remember the link in particular, but I've read, for example, Frances Schaeffer, and if he represents "traditional religion" then I encourage humanism to get on with it. Rushdooney is just disgusting.

 

[Roderick Spode]

But one has to believe that the Earth (God's Creation) is lying when what it is showing us is claimed as not true.

Then I guess the creation of Adam and Eve as mature adults would be a lie?

 

[Roderick Spode]

I don't remember the link in particular, but I've read, for example, Frances Schaeffer, and if he represents "traditional religion" then I encourage humanism to get on with it. Rushdooney is just disgusting.

And as I recall mentioning; the First Amendment is not a popularity contest.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Astrid]

Then I guess the creation of Adam and Eve as mature adults would be a lie?

Why go off comparing apples to
artichokes?

There was no flood. Those who
say there was are not telling the truth
.

Those who ignore facts for ideology are
intellectually dishonest.
Those who think they are wiser than
what the earth itself is saying are fools.

An insult to intelligence- and to the God

the god they presume to worship.