Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[BNR32FAN]

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

Hmmmmm...

Hasn’t human intelligence been constantly insulting itself on this particular topic decade after decade? Scientists are constantly updating their predictions on the age of the earth and the existence of man. Every 10 years or so they arrive at a different number. If you ask someone a question and they keep giving you a different answer over and over at some point you have to question their knowledge on this particular subject.

 

[dlamberth]

That's because God cleaned it up.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

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.

Do you think instantly turning a woman into a pillar of salt isn’t a supernatural event?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Is that the way you told your kids to clean up their messes after them?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll bet that's the expression on Noah's face, when he got off the Ark and saw this:

Or should he have expected to see this:

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think instantly turning a woman into a pillar of salt isn’t a supernatural event?

Methinks panentheists are more enamored with seeing sodium and chloride hugging each other in harmony, than seeing God judge someone for their disobedience.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then science can take a hike.

Lots of people who depend on modern medicine, telecommunications, and the like, would find that notion foolish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then science can take a hike.

Lots of people who depend on modern medicine, telecommunications, and the like, would find that notion foolish.

Then they don't understand what I'm saying, do they?

Do you feel you could explain it to them properly?

Or would you like me to explain it to you again?

 

[The Barbarian]

Then they don't understand what I'm saying, do they?

I'm not sure you do.

Do you feel you could explain it to them properly?

I think you might think about it for a bit and then try to express it better.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure you do.

I think you might think about it for a bit and then try to express it better.

Fair enough.

I'll take your comment with a grain of salt then.

You said "lost of people" would think that notion (science can take a hike) is foolish.

But I'll contend that, should I show your "lots of people" my standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

... most of them would understand exactly what I'm saying.

Oh, they may not agree with it, but at least they'd understand.

And as far as the others?

Well ... no comment.

 

[dlamberth]

I'll bet that's the expression on Noah's face, when he got off the Ark and saw this:

View attachment 344221

Or should he have expected to see this:

View attachment 344222

Describe the feeling behind his expression. That's where it becomes real to him.

 

[dlamberth]

Is that the way you told your kids to clean up their messes after them?

I never woo-woo my children.

 

[AV1611VET]

Describe the feeling behind his expression.

You did it best.



A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you think instantly turning a woman into a pillar of salt isn’t a supernatural event?

If a person believed such stories as literal, the supernatural route would have to be the only explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never woo-woo my children.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it though you instilled in them that the Bible is a book of woo woo tales (i.e., miracles)?

If someone has advanced cancer, should Christians pray for a "woo woo," in spite of you saying this:

"But God, as I know God is direct with no need to woo-woo this and that."

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think instantly turning a woman into a pillar of salt isn’t a supernatural event?

If a person believed such stories as literal, the supernatural route would have to be the only explanation.

Why do you make supernatural events sound so sinister?

 

[dlamberth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it though you instilled in them that the Bible is a book of woo woo tales (i.e., miracles)?

If someone has advanced cancer, should Christians pray for a "woo woo," in spite of you saying this:

"But God, as I know God is direct with no need to woo-woo this and that."

Not much of the Bible was instilled into my children. We're on a very different journey.
And with that no woo-woo at all. Love, Compassion, Service to those in need, the joys of life, relationship, community, that's what we tried to instill. These types of things is how God is made a reality in ones' life. Only time will say how well we did.

If a Christian feels the need to pray for someone with advanced cancer...then by all means, Pray!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Not much of the Bible was instilled into my children.

Don't count on that.

I'm sure your attitude towards God's miracles at least showed in your body language.

Perhaps they saw you do an eye roll when a friend or neighbor mentioned praying for a miracle?

Or maybe they heard you tell a Christian out on visitation at your door to take a hike?

Or maybe they overheard you telling your parents you "don't want to hear it," if they tried witnessing to you?

Who knows?

We're on a very different journey.

I somehow don't think panentheism is a very convincing argument for how the earth turns.

Especially when the likes of Klebold & Harris make the headlines.

Maybe you'd like to think your children are in the same boat as you.

But it could be they're just placating you.

Especially since you seem to have a strong aversion for the things of God.

But I could very well be wrong.

If a Christian feels the need to pray for someone with advanced cancer...then by all means, Pray!!

Why?

So God can do a woo-woo on them?

 

[The Barbarian]

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

So you want to kill people who are witches?
You want to stone to death people working on Sunday?

You figure the Earth doesn't move, since the Bible says it won't be moved?

Tell us about that.

 

[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.)

I've never seen ID described as a religion. If it was considered a religion before the trial, there would have been no need for a trial at all. And the court never decided ID itself is a religion. From wikipedia:

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

One of the problems however is that whether or not it is science is not what the trial is about. If ID is unconstitutional, then it not being science is irrelevant.

And nowhere in these 2 laws applied to the verdict unconstitutional do they reference science.

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.

Can you show me any court decision stating ID is an actual religion?

This is what humanists say blatantly knowing anyone can be listening.

In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:


". . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .


That friends, is a declaration of war. Our children are under attack in the classroom day in and day out, yet many parents do not even know the war has begun! When parents do show concern about this danger, about all they hear from educators is denial and ridicule. Despite the denials, consider the evidence that humanism is indeed the predominant philosophy of modern public education."

How is this not a violation of the 1st amendment?

From the Humanist manifesto 1:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

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


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#!

Yes, as the terms "creationist", and "creationism" were assumed to imply biblical creationism. This by the way is supposed to reoresent solid proof of a religious agenda. A misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of terms used and replaced for another in a book.