My Tagline Challenge

AV1611VET · Sep 21, 2010

If you disagree with my tagline (Science Can Take a Hike), I challenge you to explain only Genesis 7:17-24 in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in Genesis 6-9, and make it come across as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.

(I know that I, for one, would fail this challenge.)

[serious] · Sep 21, 2010

A literal reading of that section not only requires that we reject known physical laws, but that we accept active deception on the part of God. Such an event would show as a severe genetic bottleneck in the near past across the genomes of all animal species. There is also the geological evidence which God would have had to falsify, ice cores, sediment layers in lakes and seas, etc.

Bushido216 · Sep 21, 2010

Why do I feel like AV's been 56 for more than a year? Shouldn't he have had a birthday by now or something?

Split Rock · Sep 21, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If you disagree with my tagline (Science Can Take a Hike), I challenge you to explain only Genesis 7:17-24 in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in Genesis 6-9, and make it come across as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

The Flood is just a story designed to teach theological truths. Why would I try to explain it in a way that doesn't contadict a literal interpretation of the story?

AV1611VET said:
If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.

Nonsense. I can have whatever viewpoint of your tagline that I like. How about telling your erroneous interpretation of scripture to "take a hike?" Why isn't that an option?

AV1611VET said:
(I know that I, for one, would fail this challenge.)

You fail many challenges here.

pgp_protector · Sep 21, 2010

AV1611VET said:
...snip...

If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.
...snip...

I'll have whatever viewpoint of you & your tagline any time I want.

LifeToTheFullest! · Sep 21, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If you disagree with my tagline (Science Can Take a Hike), I challenge you to explain only Genesis 7:17-24 in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in Genesis 6-9, and make it come across as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.

(I know that I, for one, would fail this challenge.)

Ar Cosc · Sep 21, 2010

No. Do your own spade work!

Pesto · Sep 24, 2010

I have a naturalistic explanation for those passages.

Men wrote them.

Greenling · Sep 24, 2010

Pesto said:
I have a naturalistic explanation for those passages.

Men wrote them.

Yep. My answer would be the same as Pesto's.

But one point, AV, which might be worth a mention; the word science comes from the latin 'scientia', meaning knowledge. A rejection of knowledge sounds awfully like a preference for ignorance. Do you seriously favour that as a sensible attitude?

AV1611VET · Sep 24, 2010

Greenling said:
A rejection of knowledge sounds awfully like a preference for ignorance.

I was born ignorant, and I'll die ignorant.

Split Rock · Sep 24, 2010

AV1611VET said:
I was born ignorant, and I'll die ignorant.

I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. Strange that He gave you that superior brain you claim separates us from other animals, seeing as He doesn't want you to use it.... hmmmmm...

AV1611VET · Sep 24, 2010

Split Rock said:
I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. Strange that He gave you that superior brain you claim separates us from other animals, seeing as He doesn't want you to use it.... hmmmmm...

What separates us from the other animals is a conscious; and not just any conscious, but a conscious that is accountable to God.

Remember the 2nd Dispensation? and what it was called?

Split Rock · Sep 24, 2010

AV1611VET said:
What separates us from the other animals is a conscious; and not just any conscious, but a conscious that is accountable to God.

Remember the 2nd Dispensation? and what it was called?

Is that the one that says we should all be "child like" and remain as ignorant as possible?

Ar Cosc · Sep 24, 2010

AV1611VET said:
What separates us from the other animals is a conscious; and not just any conscious, but a conscious that is accountable to God.

Remember the 2nd Dispensation? and what it was called?

Apparently elephants are self-aware, as in, they'll look in a mirror, and recognise the image as themselves. They know they exist. The same thing is increasing looking likely in certain other simians as well. But yeah, humans are special, and completely different to any other sort of animal.

Belk · Sep 24, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If you disagree with my tagline (Science Can Take a Hike), I challenge you to explain only Genesis 7:17-24 in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in Genesis 6-9, and make it come across as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.

(I know that I, for one, would fail this challenge.)

You got me AV. I can not reconcile the way you interpret the bible with the evidence. However if you think that because of that I have no grounds to think you a fool for discarding the evidence and insisting the way you are reading must be correct you are mistaken.

Targ · Sep 24, 2010

Split Rock said:
I'm sure Jesus is proud of you. Strange that He gave you that superior brain you claim separates us from other animals, seeing as He doesn't want you to use it.... hmmmmm...

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." - Galileo

LifeToTheFullest! · Sep 24, 2010

Chimps are self aware.

sandwiches · Sep 24, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If you disagree with my tagline (Science Can Take a Hike), I challenge you to explain only Genesis 7:17-24 in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in Genesis 6-9, and make it come across as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.

(I know that I, for one, would fail this challenge.)

Your tagline can take a hike.

KhlulHloo · Sep 24, 2010

AV1611VET said:
If you disagree with my tagline (Science Can Take a Hike), I challenge you to explain only Genesis 7:17-24 in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict a literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in Genesis 6-9, and make it come across as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell one or the other -- (i.e. science or Scripture) -- to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed the challenge and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of said tagline.

(I know that I, for one, would fail this challenge.)

Because the story is only a story, and not an actual historical incident, your little challenge is impossible.
Explain the story of Little Red Riding Hood in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict the literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in LRRH, and make it come aross as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell the story or science to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed MY challenge, and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of the LRRH story. At that point, you must, by default, support the story of Little Red Riding Hood as written.

Have fun, marshmallow.

~Fairy tales floating all around us~

AV1611VET · Sep 25, 2010

KhlulHloo said:
Because the story is only a story, and not an actual historical incident, your little challenge is impossible.
Explain the story of Little Red Riding Hood in a purely naturalistic perspective; and in such a way that it doesn't contradict the literal interpretation of the context of the story as found in LRRH, and make it come aross as a viable occurrence in earth's history.

If you can't do that without having to tell the story or science to "take a hike" at some point, you have failed MY challenge, and disqualified yourself from a negative viewpoint of the LRRH story. At that point, you must, by default, support the story of Little Red Riding Hood as written.

Have fun, marshmallow.

~Fairy tales floating all around us~

Good -- then don't disagree with my tagline and expect any sympathy from me.

My Tagline Challenge

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Noted strange person

Well-Known Member

I only exist on the internet

Senior Member

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

I only exist on the internet

Senior Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

It's not pronounced Kuh-THOO-loo

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads