Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

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?

Subtract all those years up to around 6,000, and consider all that time humans were incapable of creating a form of writing documentation. And then upon doing so progressed so rapidly to where they created advanced civilizations, architecture we're not really sure how were accomplished in building, a seafaring peoples who created an alphabet system we glean from today, a progressive calendar system, and a form of early globalization. Not to mention modern technology up to now.

No wonder people think extraterrestrials came to earth in ancient times influencing ANE civilizations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation stories set the ground floor of most all religions.

And I'm glad they have them, so I'll know what religions to avoid.

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.

And how did they get into the desert in the first place?

Does the same Source Document give us that information as well?

Religions are built on the religions before them.

So Judaism isn't a religion then?

So no telling where the story's we find in the Bible originally came from.

God?

Today we've gained a lot of actual knowledge of the Earth and the Universe.

Good.

A new Creation story is being written based on what God actually Created and not on ancient stories of unknown origin.

Good.

I'll treat this "new creation story" like all the others.

I'll compare it to the Source Document.

And if it doesn't line up, it can take a hike.

I have no time line for ancient and non-ancient.

But you do historic and prehistoric, do you not?

Do you know, in college language, what the exact line of demarcation is between "prehistoric" and "historic"?

I'll give you a hint:

It's [allegedly] an invention that mankind made up back then.

If you give up, it's in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

writing

But clearly creation stories that are some 3000 or more years old is ancient.

I thought you said you have no timeline for them?

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.

You find me that signature, and we can talk about it.

The Earth can not lie.

Is that what it told you?

If not, to what do you compare its claims to, to ascertain its truthfulness?

The Earth shows us a very long time line of existence for instance,

Only on paper.

... 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.

Then I'm sure you'll be more than happy to tell us how you ascertain its truth?

What exactly are you comparing its claims to?

It's the same as saying that the Earth is lying. Where's the honesty in that?

Would you know the difference?

I suspect where we may differ is that beyond variety I also experience animals and everything else as an activity of God.

Serious question:

Do you talk to them?

(I do.)

That for me has a way of changing the whole landscape towards the sacred.

And, of course, we all know animals don't lie either ... right?

And because I see Him everywhere I look, God becomes more of a reality in my life.

What do you think when you see God put on public display, locked up inside of cages, and people charged money to come in and gawk at them and take pictures?

I'm drawn to the Christian Mystics and others of the Wisdom tradition of the various religions.

So am I.

Only you see them as prophets; and I see them as mission fields.

My library is pretty inclusive.

I've got a library of sixty-six books that I use as my standard for faith and practice.

It's interesting how they often found themselves as Panentheist at some level.

There's a Remedy for that.

Most do not know about Panenthesim or even the word.

Is that good or bad?

Interesting that you brought it up.

Yup.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

In order to make a global flood work and at the same time deny what the Earth is actually showing us, a person has to invoke woo-woo stuff. You seem to rely on it. That's the only way it works for many. God, from my understanding, it straight up with His Creation. No woo-woo needed to explain this Creation. That's how I see it anyway.

Does creation in the context of panentheism involve the supernatural?

The term does not enter the conversation. On the other hand, being aware of the Creating life force with in all of life does.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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

It doesn't really matter since to you, God doesn't exist.

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

" God" isnt a religion either. So?

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

It's irrelevant. By definition it could be Allah, Xenu, or the god in deism.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

But to you God doesn't even exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Does the earth tell us it's God's footstool?

Isaiah 66:1a Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:

 

[Roderick Spode]

In order to make a global flood work and at the same time deny what the Earth is actually showing us, a person has to invoke woo-woo stuff. You seem to rely on it. That's the only way it works for many. God, from my understanding, it straight up with His Creation. No woo-woo needed to explain this Creation. That's how I see it anyway.

By woo woo you mean the supernatural? How else do you think God created the earth?

The term does not enter the conversation. On the other hand, being aware of the Creating life force with in all of life does.

Since science doesn't prove any life force within us, wouldn't it be a type of the supernatural? Even if the term is not used in panentheistic conversation?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Why don't atheists see that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Those who think they are wiser than what the earth itself is saying are fools.

Interesting word choice.

Who are the ones who call themselves "wise men" [a.k.a., Homo sapiens]?

And what did Paul warn about those who called themselves such?

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Where do you stand?

Do you really want to consider yourself a Homo sapiens?

 

[AV1611VET]

In order to make a global flood work and at the same time deny what the Earth is actually showing us, a person has to invoke woo-woo stuff.

Either that, or realize God cleaned up His mess.

And when God cleans something up ... it's clean.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

That's a testable claim. As you know, the Dover Trial established that ID is a religion. Take a look at what IDers say to each other when they think no one else is listening...

From their "not for distribution" Wedge Document:

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

(Note - This is the text of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document," prepared in 1998.

ncse.ngo

No question, that's a religion.

Someone inadvertently included this secret agenda out with stuff to be copied. Someone working there noticed it, leaked it.

The problem was that it was terminology like Creation and Creationism that determined that verdict.

It didn't help when it became clear that the "ID textbook" Of Pandas and People was shown to be a creationist text, which had a few words changed to make it appear otherwise.

Interestingly, "intelligent design" actually first appeared in Pandas. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, a Christian non-profit, was already crafting the book when the Supreme Court gaveled oral arguments in 1986's Edwards v. Aguillard case, using terms like "creationist" and "creationism" widely throughout. But when the Court ruled that creationism could not be taught in schools, the authors of Pandas removed all mention of it and substituted in "intelligent design."

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/01/11/of_pandas_and_people_a_brief_history_of_the_original_intelligent_design_textbook.html#!

 

[Astrid]

It doesn't really matter since to you, God doesn't exist.

It's irrelevant. By definition it could be Allah, Xenu, or the god in deism.

What's relevant is that your "flood" did not happen.

But what are facts to you? Irrelevant, eh?

 

[The Barbarian]

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."

I think YEC is completely wrong. However, I notice that intelligent and honest and even sincerely Christian YE creationists do exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's relevant is that your "flood" did not happen.

Either that, or it did.

But what are facts to you? Irrelevant, eh?

Facts are as good as the one generating them.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

There are lot of ways. The most obvious one, is "yes there is evidence for evolution, but I put my understanding of God's word about man's understanding of evidence."

Particularly interesting is the "virtual history" idea of Gerald Aardsma, who thinks the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and what he admits is very good evidence for much a much more ancient Earth is sort of a backstory to creation as it is. Look it up; he does a better job of explaining it than I can.

BC Newsletters

About The Biblical Chronologist newsletters.

www.biblicalchronologist.org

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

And that admission pretty well sums it up for everyone. Science works. Trying to do science with the Bible doesn't work.

 

[dlamberth]

Either that, or realize God cleaned up His mess.

And when God cleans something up ... it's clean.

I'm not into woo-woo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trying to do science with the Bible doesn't work.

Then science can take a hike.

Expecting to do science with the Bible is like expecting to do computer maintenance with Bill Gate's diary.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not into woo-woo.

That's because God cleaned it up.

 

[dlamberth]

By woo woo you mean the supernatural? How else do you think God created the earth?

First with the Big Bang. Than evolving sun, planets and galaxies. After a few billion years, material was gravitational pulled together to form our solar system which included this earth.

Since science doesn't prove any life force within us, wouldn't it be a type of the supernatural? Even if the term is not used in panentheistic conversation?

Not supernatural at all. The Life Force that Panentheist are aware of is the essence of Life. As an example, the Love a new mother has for her new born child, or the gleam in the eyes of an infant laughing, or the pull of beauty that flowers has on a person, or the bees flying from bloom to bloom. And we Human Beings are all with in it as One. We can not be separate from it.

For myself, calling something supernatural calls into the arena the Roman/Greek Pagan gods in how they were said to operate. But God, as I know God is direct with no need to woo-woo this and that. Everything with out exceptions changes and evolves over time.