Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[BCP1928]

Either that, or it's a life saver/sustainer.

It's a sustainer of a literal reading of Genesis, should you want to sustain such a thing. Nobody else cares.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's true.

You have to demonstrate it first.

Which you do.

Remember: the quality goes in, before the name goes on.



Simple as NTS.

That's still not showing how me pointing out that since you believe and claim that God created the Earth 6000 years ago clearly and fundamentally makes you a YEC is a No True Scotsman argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not just that it doesn't say it, it's that there are passages that cast suspicion on our ability to trust what can be seen with the eyes and gleaned from the senses. One thing the Bible makes pretty clear is that there is something very wrong with the world as it stands, another is that God has allowed it to be ruled by Satan for a season. So while there is deception inherent in something like embedded age, it isn't necessarily God doing the deception especially as it is conceivable that He provided warnings against trusting our faculties.

Only if the Bible is taken literally and ignores the fact that there is a whole lot of allegory and poetic language in the Bible.

 

[dlamberth]

YOU realize you're dealing with someone who thinks I'm a YEC, don't you?

They would be correct. You ARE a YEC!

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not just that it doesn't say it,

What's this then?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[The Barbarian]

Prove what? I think biblical scholars generally agree that the term can mean little else but a standard 24 day.

No, that's a bad assumption. For example, over thousand years ago, St Augustine pointed out that there was no way to interpret them as literal 24 hour days.

The great Medieval Hebrew theologian Maimonedes pointed out that Genesis was not a literal account.

 

[Fervent]

Only if the Bible is taken literally and ignores the fact that there is a whole lot of allegory and poetic language in the Bible.

Rendering the Bible allegory robs it of all meaning, exegesis requires we take the literal meaning of the words seriously before we begin examining other levels of meaning. Though reading it literally does require us to recognize where poetry and symbolism and other figurative language is in operation, there is not a conflict between literal interpretation(and by that I mean in accorrdance with the literary genre) and such considerations. So where the Bible says things like "we know by faith that God did not create by anything that can be seen" we have reason to question assumptions about visual inspection being able to reliably reconstruct history.

I say this not because I myself am suspicious of as much, but because there is more at play than just what the evidence shows and a simplistic argument about deception, especially on God's part.

 

[dlamberth]

It's not just that it doesn't say it, it's that there are passages that cast suspicion on our ability to trust what can be seen with the eyes and gleaned from the senses. One thing the Bible makes pretty clear is that there is something very wrong with the world as it stands, another is that God has allowed it to be ruled by Satan for a season. So while there is deception inherent in something like embedded age, it isn't necessarily God doing the deception especially as it is conceivable that He provided warnings against trusting our faculties.

According to the theology of AV, it is God who is doing the deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not a life saver or sustainer in the slightest. It's a deception from you because you want to have the Bible and science together, but you're so hyperfocused on your interpretation of the Bible be the only interpretation to be the correct one, you create a horrible, extra-Biblical hybrid. You basically want to eat your cake and have it too.

This is why you academians can't recreate miracles in your synagogues.

You have no idea what was done, nor how it was done.

(But I'll admit, even if you did, you still wouldn't be able to do it.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Rendering the Bible allegory robs it of all meaning, exegesis requires we take the literal meaning of the words seriously before we begin examining other levels of meaning. Though reading it literally does require us to recognize where poetry and symbolism and other figurative language is in operation, there is not a conflict between literal interpretation(and by that I mean in accorrdance with the literary genre) and such considerations. So where the Bible says things like "we know by faith that God did not create by anything that can be seen" we have reason to question assumptions about visual inspection being able to reliably reconstruct history.

I say this not because I myself am suspicious of as much, but because there is more at play than just what the evidence shows and a simplistic argument about deception, especially on God's part.

Oh, I got to be honest I do not care enough to go at this with you, especially since I can tell right away we're not going to agree on anything nor is either one of us going to accept the other's view.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is why you academians can't recreate miracles in your synagogues.

You have no idea what was done, nor how it was done.

(But I'll admit, even if you did, you still wouldn't be able to do it.)

And you don't know jack squat.

And your language is oh so telling about what you really think, especially in specifically using 'synagogue' as the place of 'worship' for 'academians'.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a sustainer of a literal reading of Genesis, should you want to sustain such a thing. Nobody else cares.

If they did care, they'd have to stop Arap-phoning words to make themselves look good.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's still not showing how me pointing out that since you believe and claim that God created the Earth 6000 years ago clearly and fundamentally makes you a YEC is a No True Scotsman argument.

That's because you'll go 404 when I ask you to tell me how old I don't think the earth was when God created it.

 

[AV1611VET]

They would be correct. You ARE a YEC!

And you are a No True Scotsman.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's because you'll go 404 when I ask you to tell me how old I don't think the earth was when God created it.

That's still not showing how me pointing out that since you believe and claim that God created the Earth 6000 years ago clearly and fundamentally makes you a YEC is a No True Scotsman argument.

AV, you are a YEC, no bones about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that's a bad assumption. For example, over thousand years ago, St Augustine pointed out that there was no way to interpret them as literal 24 hour days.

The great Medieval Hebrew theologian Maimonedes pointed out that Genesis was not a literal account.

"Saint" Augustine didn't use the King James Bible, did he?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And you are a No True Scotsman.

You're not even using the argument in the right sense! That's what's been bugging about the whole thing: A No True Scotsman fallacy is not something someone is, it's something someone claims!

You need to be saying that we're commiting the No True Scotsman fallacy, not that we ARE the No True Scotsman.

 

[Fervent]

According to the theology of AV, it is God who is doing the deception.

Fair point

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Saint" Augustine didn't use the King James Bible, did he?

Since he was one of the founding fathers of the Christian faith in Western Europe and was born in 354 AD and died 450 AD... OF COURSE NOT.

And his word holds a lot more weight than yours does since he actually put in the work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I am well aware you're King James' Version only, and that's just nutty.

And I love how you let your mask slip just enough to let us know what you really think, AV.

You don't have to look very far to know what I think.

I'll put it right up in the storefront window.

Others? Well ...