Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[AV1611VET]

I'd give some real consideration - and rightly so! - to people's assertions that their interpretation of bible verses was god inspired and therefore infallible, IF they all were god inspired to the same interpretation.

How much consideration would you give to those who say the Bible -- (rather than their interpretation of the Bible) -- is infallible?

 

[Astrid]

Only the Christian Nationalists.

I did have a deranged person, who evidently
believed he was a good christian, tell me i'd
be hanging from a lamp post the day
he got Word that it's time to start killing
all the atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did have a deranged person, who evidently believed he was a good christian, tell me I'd be hanging from a lamp post the day he got Word that it's time to start killing all the atheists.

The only difference though is that our "deranged person, who evidently believes he is a good catholic," -- (to use your words) -- can't understand why I won't do it.

QV Post 219

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

I agree, but if it wasn’t intended to be literal I have a hard time understanding how it could be used metaphorically.

 

[The Barbarian]

So you want to kill people who are witches?

No.

Bible tells you to do that. Why won't you?
You want to stone to death people working on Sunday?

No.

Why won't you? The Bible tells you to do that.
You figure the Earth doesn't move, since the Bible says it won't be moved?

No.

So it's like a cafeteria for you; take some of it, and reject the stuff you don't like. That's not what I think of when I say "Biblical creationist."

 

[The Barbarian]

And your attempts to make Bible believers into vigilantes are deplorable.

I'm just noting that you believe only the parts you like.

 

[dlamberth]

You make Louie Armstrong sound like a panentheist.

I don't know what Louie Armstrong saw in himself, but I certainly see the Creative aspect of the Divine going on there.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Nothing in the right to free expression allows teaching sectarian religious doctrine to public schoolchildren, whether that doctrine is Christian or not, popular or not.

The quote of course was reference to a quote from humanist (humanist sometimes tagged with secular religion) John Dunphy, who promotes the idea of presenting humanism in the public classroom with the purpose of removing traditional religion from our culture.

So while the right to free expression doesn't allow teaching sectarian religious doctrine in public classrooms, it also doesn't allow discouragement of any sort against them.

To keep religion out means to not promote any religion, nor attack any religion. Neutrality being the key factor.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

If you found a line in the Bible that said 2+2=5, would you believe it and accept it as true?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why won't you? The Bible tells you to do that.
You figure the Earth doesn't move, since the Bible says it won't be moved?

Since you like interpreting the Bible, how do you interpret this?

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Which is it?

Am I to be "steadfast, unmoveable"?

Or am I to "always abound"?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just noting that you believe only the parts you like.

Your notes can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you found a line in the Bible that said 2+2=5, would you believe it and accept it as true?

Depends on the context.

Who's saying it?

Satan or God?

A fallen angel, or someone lying?

Context, context, context.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree, but if it wasn’t intended to be literal I have a hard time understanding how it could be used metaphorically.

A metaphor is a comparison of one thing to another for explanatory purposes. The object serving as the basis of the comparison need not be literal.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I don't know whether you can properly say it is a lie. But it seems like an odd thing to do. Do you have any theological rational for it? It's the same with any version of "Last Thursdayism." Sure, it's possible, God can do anything, But why?

The reference was to the common claim that if God created the earth in a mature state, the earth would be lying to us because it would give us a false history, even though 6 day creation is implied in His Word.

Adam and Eve of course would be lying to us to as they would be projecting a false (non-existent) history as well.

I'm sure dlamberth doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, but I never really hear the same claim to A&E giving us a false history being created as adults. Maybe the idea of creating 2 fully mature humans would be more plausible?

If you're asking why did God create 2 fully adult humans; there was a specific purpose that required 2 fully adult humans. The idea of requiring Adam and Eve to have started out as embryos would IMO create more of a "why"?

 

[Roderick Spode]

As we discussed, evolution is entirely compatible with scripture. Most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that acknowledge evolution is compatible with scripture.

Maybe, but I have yet to see anything beyond merely stating Genesis to be figurative, allegorical, or mythical. I have yet to see a breakdown of, or references to specific scripture in relation to evolution, as at least we see (to some degree) with OEC.

We are biblical creationists, but not YE creationists.

Out of curiosity, are all OE creationists theistic evolutionists?

 

[Roderick Spode]

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


Problem is, many of the most prominent among YE creationists are giving you guys a bad name.

Being given a bad name in itself isn't necessarily bad. All of the biblical heroes of faith were given a bad name. But it might depend on what you mean. I'm not familiar with a lot of them, so I don't know if you're talking about their beliefs, or something like their character.

 

[BCP1928]

The quote of course was reference to a quote from humanist (humanist sometimes tagged with secular religion) John Dunphy, who promotes the idea of presenting humanism in the public classroom with the purpose of removing traditional religion from our culture.

So while the right to free expression doesn't allow teaching sectarian religious doctrine in public classrooms, it also doesn't allow discouragement of any sort against them.

To keep religion out means to not promote any religion, nor attack any religion. Neutrality being the key factor.

Whether you see it as an attack depends on what you mean by "traditional religion" and why you think it should have a unique standing in our culture.

 

[Roderick Spode]

That's pretty much a religion, if it can't free itself of its religious assumptions.

It can only be called a religion in a very loose sense. Like someone saying the NFL is a religion due to fanaticism, pre-game rituals, icons, etc.

Intelligent Design is a term similar to Cowboy. Two words with a very basic definition. Intelligent Design is simply a being with enough intelligence to design with a purpose. This would include a human being. But because of it being associated with a demonized organization, the term has been glorified to mean something entirely different. Like a religion. And of course in similar fashion, a cowboy is simply a boy who tends to cows. But because of movie westerns, etc., the term has been glorified to mean something different than what it has been morphed into.

True. If a mouse is not a manufactured device, then there's no point arguing whether or not it's a motorcycle.

The problem goes much deeper than that. The need for the unnecessary double verdict is plain to see. The judge actually stated that ID might be true, but just not science. If the verdict would have been; ID might be true, just not constitutional, there'd be a problem.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Those are not predictions. Those are estimates. If you will take the time (no conscious pun intended) to investigate the nature of those updates over the past couple of hundred years you will discover the following:

• The early estimates of age were , compared with the current ones, quite small - tens, or hundred of millions of years
• There were large error bars attached to those ages
• As technology and understanding increased the age estimates grew and the error bars shrank
• For around half a century the age has been estimated at approximately 4.5 billion years.
• Changes in this interval have been refinements of tens of millions, then millions of years, so that we are now discerning the age of distincct phases in planetary formation

I am not clear why you would view a systematic improvement in technology that reduces the errors of the estimates to be a "constant insult". Rather it seems a tribute to human ingenuity and perseverance; something to be celebrated, not denigrated. It seems that your motivation is frustration that the evidence based estimates do not align with your beliefs. That does not justify your baseless and ill informed attack. By all means declare that your faith forbids you to accept the evidence, but please do not misrepresent that evidence, as you have done here.

Both predictions and estimates are used in the calibration of all of the dating methods. We don’t actually know how long it takes for c14 to decay it’s based on a prediction based on rates we’ve been able to observe. Just like we don’t know exactly how long it takes for radiation to accumulate in different material or how long it actually takes for radioactive isotopes to decay. All of this is based on predictions and estimates based on what we can observe now, not what we observed millions of years ago. Furthermore they incorporate geological predictions and estimates into the calibration process in an attempt to get a more accurate prediction.

 

[BCP1928]

Being given a bad name in itself isn't necessarily bad. All of the biblical heroes of faith were given a bad name. But it might depend on what you mean. I'm not familiar with a lot of them, so I don't know if you're talking about their beliefs, or something like their character.

It starts with Henry Morris, the founder of modern YECism: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." This at once misrepresents the science and impugns the integrity of the scientists who work on it. In addition, it is an attempt to conceal his real motive for opposing the theory of evolution, which is not to defend the existence of God but a narrow sectarian view of the Bible. It's all downhill from there.