Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[AV1611VET]

Completely invalid reasoning. The discussion here is about the reliability of the Bible. Specifically the reliability of the creation account within the Bible. To attempt to use the Bible to claim that the Bible is reliable is equivalent to merely repeating yourself that the Bible is reliable.

Aside from the fact that this conversation is now getting old, let me make a correction before I /thread.

My only point --- my only point --- is that all you guys understand is: GOD DID IT.

How this discussion got around to the reliability of the Bible, I don't know, but this thread is no longer holding my attention.

Well guess what? I don't believe you that the Bible is reliable.

No joke? Your icon tells me that.

I could say the exact same thing of your faith icon.

Indeed you could, and it would be absolutely true --- if I had the mindset that you guys have --- I'd have your icon by my name.

You see --- here's what you don't get --- (as usual):

I'm at least giving you guys credit for understanding the concept of: GOD DID IT.

I, on the other hand, don't understand a thing about you guys' concepts of NATURE DID IT.

Thus, you're more knowledgeable than I.

But since you guys are so gung-ho to make me look bad, you overlook stuff.

Now --- having said this --- goodbye.

/thread

 

[AV1611VET]

I realise that. However, I was merely making the observation you can still have a Christian faith icon and disagree with some of the entries.

Disagreeing with someone/something is not the same as not understanding someone/something.

There's a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

 

[Cabal]

Disagreeing with someone/something is not the same as not understanding someone/something.

There's a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

I'll give you that. However I think there's a problem with that kind of thinking. It assumes that anyone who doesn't come around to your way of thinking is missing the point. Maybe you're failing to communicate? I agree that your usage of 1 Corinthians 2:14 is relevant for some - but surely not for all cases?

 

[Chalnoth]

Aside from the fact that this conversation is now getting old, let me make a correction before I /thread.

My only point --- my only point --- is that all you guys understand is: GOD DID IT.

How this discussion got around to the reliability of the Bible, I don't know, but this thread is no longer holding my attention.

It didn't get around to that. That's how this whole branch of the discussion started.

Your icon tells me that.Indeed you could, and it would be absolutely true --- if I had the mindset that you guys have --- I'd have your icon by my name.

But do you somehow think that different mindsets are more or less equivalent? That there aren't reasons why one mindset might be more or less likely to lead one to the truth than another mindset? Why should we not compare different possible mindsets and see which is more likely to be accurate?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Thanks SE, but I don't need you to prove my point for me --- the Bible can do it just fine ---

Okay okay okay. It's a secret handshake and the junior Christian must do the Truffle Shuffle.

I think you are --- and the Bible backs me --- therefore: case closed.

Anyone see how this is all full circle in regards to juvenile thinking. I'm sure there are tons of scientists worldwide who would not have to work so hard of scientific research boiled down to, "Nah uh! It's how I say it is!." and that was that. You know...instead of people actually demonstrating why some new piece of information should be accepted as accurate and factual.

Maybe that's asking too much of the Bible hm

MR /ostrich's argument is really boiling down to, you have to agree that X is true before you understand why X is true. And I think we all see the giant gaping hole in that logic from a mile away.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Embedded Age

Oh believe me, AV, we understand that concept. It is patently an unfalsifiable ad hoc guess on your part. If you can't prove it, then there is no reason to assume it has any explanatory value other than to make you feel good about your interpretation of the Bible.

That's fine. But don't assume that because we disagree with you on its value that we somehow "don't understand" it.

We do.

, creatio ex nihilo, dispensation theology, fundamentalism, independent fundamentalism, King James Version Only, sola Scriptura, sanctification (initial, progressive, or entire), the definition of "moral", miracles vs. magic, etc. and so on --- forget it.

The funny thing is, you wandered off into the weeds on this one. Note your little "list" there. After "Creation Ex Nihilo" you start listing specific theologies followed by a minority sect within larger Christianity.

The only thing you guys understand are the words: GOD DID IT --- period.

That's because other than your unique sect theologies, that's all I see you presenting.

Even you, Thaumaturgy, call yourself by a term that you have no concept what it is, or Who is behind it.

What the...? What do you mean by that?

I assure you I understand science better than you, so if I call myself a scientist it is because I have taken the time to understand it.

I assure you I understand atheism better than you, so if I call myself an atheist it is because I have taken the time to understand it.

I would be curious about what you mean by this cryptic statement. The fact that I have a broader grasp of most concepts we discuss on here I would be very interested in what your opinion is of what I do and don't understand about my own opinions.

You have something to question me on, punk? Ask it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm mainly talking about the ones with the

icon.

Notice the verse I quoted though says, "the natural man", which would include many others.

Oh, so is that it?

I'll remind you, AV, that I (and probably every single other atheist on this board) has put a huge amount of thought into our atheism. The fact that most of us can defend our stands consistently and without resort to "/thread" or "...can take a hike" comments is probably all the evidence you need that we who have chosen this path have done so after a lot of work.

Most of us are extremely well versed with a broader swath of Christian thought and history than you and your minority "sect theologies". I'll take you on in terms of the larger, overall Church history, philosophy, logic and have enough bandwidth to take on science.

"If we understood..."? You give yourself to much credit for providing anything we can't understand.

 

[Split Rock]

I like this explanation:SOURCE
[/FONT]

Yes, I understand what it means. I was asking about its theological basis.

Interesting from your link:

"Since we have so many copies (some no longer than a verse), and the original languages are both so a) precise and b) so chock-full of multiLAYER nuance and meaning, it becomes CLEAR (though painstaking) which is the "Autograph" (original text) and which is NOT. FAR BETTER WAY TO PROVE AND SEE DEPTH-OF-TRUTH, than if there was one or a few 'nice' manuscripts.

So the task of translation is, to "apprehend the exact thought of the WRITER", not our own, not someone else's. Unfortunately, all the translations are regularly and even predictably tainted by the OPINIONS of the translators; who, in the name of 'translation, not interpretation', CHOPPED OFF meanings that really ARE in the original text; or, ADDED IN meanings which are NOT in the original text. (My websites often illustrate this problem.) In all fairness, Scripture is SOOO very multilevel, it's IMPOSSIBLE to merely translate ALL of the meaning which is REALLY SAID in the original-language texts. However, the way translations chop off or add to the word is always SLANTED to a legalistic, gotta-work-for-God OPINION. It's as predictable as gravity, once you see the original enough, versus any translation.

So if you REALLY want to know God's Word, you have to learn and study it in the original languages. "

 

[Chalnoth]

It's amusing, however, that that website author seems to think it's actually possible to divine the actual original words of the writer. After all, if that original writer was dictating the text (which seems likely for at least some of the New Testament), then any errors in dictation will exist in all texts that we discover. Alternatively, it is possible that only one lineage of a number of early lineages of a text survived, such that early copy errors exist in all subsequent texts.

Of course, people can do pretty well, but there's no way to know with certainty what the original writers' intent or even exact words were.

 

[AV1611VET]

What the...? What do you mean by that?

You know exactly what I mean by that --- you picked it, didn't you?

(Unless you think a thaumaturge is a magic trick.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll take you on in terms of the larger, overall Church history, philosophy, logic and have enough bandwidth to take on science.

You know what your problem is, Thaumaturgy? You didn't heed Paul's advice, and now you're spoiled.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

You didn't keep yourself pure, did you?

And, by the way, you know what those "rudiments of the world" are?

 

[Athrond]

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Right back at you AV

 

[threedog]

Science requires mental effort. Religion requires unquestioned submission.
I am not the one with a problem.
I fear no god.
I fear no demons.
The only thing I fear are the people who believe in such things!

WELL PUT TANZANOS...WELL PUT!


threedog

 

[thaumaturgy]

You You didn't heed Paul's advice, and now you're spoiled.You didn't keep yourself pure, did you?

If God didn't want me to use the brain I got and didn't want me to be curious about the world around me, well then God didn't want me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You know exactly what I mean by that --- you picked it, didn't you?

(Unless you think a thaumaturge is a magic trick.)

Oh, my SCREEN NAME! Ah ha! I get it.

No, you see I chose Thaumaturgy because I like WORDS. Because I use the term doesn't mean I believe in miracles.



Oh my. You don't have any real insight into who I am, do you?

Sorry about the confusion! I forgot. You see, AV, I love words. I mean really love words. I'm one of the few scientists you'll ever meet who consistently scored higher on language skills tests than I did on math-tests. Because of that I also love to find unique words.

I suppose I could have chosen any of several of my other current favorite words:

quincunx
eschatology (I usually name file directories that when I am stashing things that are part of projects that are at an end or coming to and end)
pusilanimous
pulchritudinous
ex cathedra

gosh all sortsa things! And what's even stranger (and something you likely are incapable of grasping about me), because I like to talk and think about religion I have a real fascination with religious phrases! Like soteriology!

Interestingly enough you are just as likely to hear me sprinkle religious aphorisms and even bible quotes in my talk and writing (not my technical writing, although I have been known to utilize a geologic phrase describe a chain of glacial lakes...I'm sure you know the phrase: pater nostrum? Well, that's a religious phrase but applied to non-religious things.)

You see, AV, perhaps you are confused when people use words in an ironic or non-hyper-literal sense. That's understandable. You really should learn to look at english as a beautiful language and one worth playing with. Try reading some literature some time!

I also am fond of the latin phrases but mostly out of the fun of it. I am woefully shy of the requisite training.

Again, my apologies.

Oh, but if you think for a second that I chose my screen name without being fully aware of it, well, you were, as usual, wrong about me.

 

[Split Rock]

You didn't keep yourself pure, did you?

I suppose that means "child like." One wonders why God gave Adam such a complex brain, if he was just supposed to be submissive to God and not think too hard...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh my. You don't have any real insight into who I am, do you?

Well, balderdash --- it boggles my mind that I could scrabble your name. I suppose if I probe with the right questions, you would spill n' spell the story behind your name. The next time I crosswords with you, I'll keep that in mind before the hangman of heximania shows up and puts us in a cube.

 

[CraigBaugher]

thaumaturgy or any evolutionist:

Please tell me when exactly did all the plantlife begin, in as specific time frame as possible and then how we went from zoo plankton to a Redwood, etc...

See as much as evolutionist cannot wrap their minds around a creator creating life, and the heavens and earth in six days - which you and I cannot understand, for we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what is possible, and before we do, history, mathematics, science will be rewritten a few more times (to adapt to our new understanding). Nevertheless, I cannot wrap my mind around all the varieties of plant life, insects, reptiles, animals, and man all evolving from one cell creatures.

We think we are so smart... and God looks at us, like we look at a dog or a cat... with amusement and love. "They are so smart... but in reality, they have not a clue... It is the reason I have to take care of them."

Can any of you super brains figure out how a billion years of development take place in a precieved time frame of 24-hours? Is it possible? ABSOLUTELY - it all about percieved time and actual speed, right? Are we moving at roughly 25,000 MPH, yet what is our preception... I know this is simple... but it a simple example...

 

[Jester4kicks]

thaumaturgy or any evolutionist:

I un-bolded your post... were you really yelling? Y so angry?

Please tell me when exactly did all the plantlife begin, in as specific time frame as possible

It's going to depend on what you consider "plant life"... but if we're talking about the first microbial mats... roughly 2.5 - 3.5 Billion years ago.

and then how we went from zoo plankton to a Redwood, etc..

Who said we went from plankton to a Redwood?

If you were trying to say "how did we get from those first types of plant life to the redwoods we have today".... then the answer is easy: a whole lot a very small steps.

Nevertheless, I cannot wrap my mind around all the varieties of plant life, insects, reptiles, animals, and man all evolving from one cell creatures.

Hmmm... well let's explore that. You said you CAN'T wrap your head around all of that coming from single-cell organisms... so let's start by figuring out what you CAN. How about small relationships. Can you see the relationship between a horse and a zebra? Are you willing to accept that the two creatures evolved from a common ancestor?

Can any of you super brains figure out how a billion years of development take place in a precieved time frame of 24-hours? Is it possible? ABSOLUTELY - it all about percieved time and actual speed, right? Are we moving at roughly 25,000 MPH, yet what is our preception... I know this is simple... but it a simple example...

Me thinks you need to brush up on your relativity as well.

 

[Nathan Poe]

thaumaturgy or any evolutionist:

Please tell me when exactly did all the plantlife begin, in as specific time frame as possible and then how we went from zoo plankton to a Redwood, etc...

And unless you get an exact timeframe to the nanosecond, then Goddidit?

See as much as evolutionist cannot wrap their minds around a creator creating life, and the heavens and earth in six days -

The thing is, we can "wrap our minds" around it -- even primative nomads living thousands of years ago were able to "wrap their minds" around it. We're just not willing to twist our minds into believe that such mythology actually happened. Why should we?

which you and I cannot understand, for we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what is possible, and before we do, history, mathematics, science will be rewritten a few more times (to adapt to our new understanding).

We call that "learning" -- which, historically speaking, has always slowed to a crawl whenever we throw up our hands in futility and write it all off as the work of the Magic Man in the Sky.

Nevertheless, I cannot wrap my mind around all the varieties of plant life, insects, reptiles, animals, and man all evolving from one cell creatures.

It is complicated stuff, isn't it? But since reality is not limited to things you can comfortably "wrap your mind" around, so what?

We think we are so smart... and God looks at us, like we look at a dog or a cat... with amusement and love. "They are so smart... but in reality, they have not a clue... It is the reason I have to take care of them."

Funny how fundies always make God in their own image -- hence, you're putting your own words in His mouth

Can any of you super brains figure out how a billion years of development take place in a precieved time frame of 24-hours? Is it possible? ABSOLUTELY - it all about percieved time and actual speed, right? Are we moving at roughly 25,000 MPH, yet what is our preception... I know this is simple... but it a simple example...

So simple as to be incoherent. All motion is relative, so what does Galilean relativity have to do with anything you've said?