Criteria for determining design

[AV1611VET]

I do believe that lchm realizes that the creation account was allegory at best. It has rather little to do with reality.

I'd say that's about the only way one can reconcile Scripture with evolution.

Mark 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

One first has to bind the strong man (literalism), then he can use allegory to say whatever he wants.

 

[AV1611VET]

As you obviously have a very narrow understanding of what it means to study the Bible: i.e. Learning the meaning of words can be helpful, but you'll need to graduate beyond primitive concordances if you want to come to grips with the meatier subjects. In time grasshopper, in time.

Fair enough.

Show me evolution in the Bible without invoking Satan's Concordance.

Just go sola Scriptura and tell me how angiosperms existed without the sun for eons.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I do believe that lchm realizes that the creation account was allegory at best. It has rather little to do with reality.

I've a tendency not to comment about it too much about the Biblical creationist perspective of the book of Genesis according to the Christian sacred texts (Bible), as it leads to flame wars on the part of those who take it to be literally word-for-word from God to man (in some cases almost ignoring the fact that the texts have third person narrative) without human agency. It's given ultimate and final authority and therefore cannot be challenged or questioned, without the obvious chorus of damnation ringing in the ears of all and sundry who would dare to postulate that it might need a little tweaking here and there.

I only began to study Evolution after I'd learned to accept what the Bible is and what the Bible isn't.

Sadly too many rabid evangelical nomads, roam these cyber corridors (as I did - though not here) demanding submission to it, and issue peals of damnation to all and sundry who dare to insist that the subject of origins has very little to do with Evolution.

In a very real sense, the idea of putting Creation and Evolution in the same forum is like mixing two very volatile substances and expecting them not to get hot and bothered -- is just plain and simply wrong.

Personally, I've learned within the first few moments here -- to take some people's comments with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd say that's about the only way one can reconcile Scripture with evolution.

Mark 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

One first has to bind the strong man (literalism), then he can use allegory to say whatever he wants.

There is no need to do so. In fact by trying to stick with a strict literal interpretation of parts of the Bible you make your religion a laughing stock. You harm Christianity far more than a Muslim or atheist could.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no need to do so.

Fair enough -- let's allegorize it -- like I did in the first place by invoking "eons."

How about you tell me how angiosperms existed for eons without the sun?

(Or are you now going to tell me that, not only are the words allegorical, but the order of the allegories need to be rearranged?)

 

[AV1611VET]

I've a tendency not to comment about it too much about the Biblical creationist perspective of the book of Genesis according to the Christian sacred texts (Bible), as it leads to flame wars on the part of those who take it to be literally word-for-word ...

Fair enough, Lewis.

In a rare moment here, I'm willing to consider Genesis 1 as allegory.

Now ... just tell me how allegorical angiosperms existed allegorically without an allegorical sun for allegorical eons.

(Or is the order of the creation events in Genesis 1 allegorical as well?)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Fair enough, Lewis.

In a rare moment here, I'm willing to consider Genesis 1 as allegory.

Now ... just tell me how allegorical angiosperms existed allegorically without an allegorical sun for allegorical eons.

(Or is the order of the creation events in Genesis 1 allegorical as well?)

Did I say it was an allegory? No.
It's an ancient document, that has zip to with science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've a tendency not to comment about it too much about the Biblical creationist perspective of the book of Genesis according to the Christian sacred texts (Bible), as it leads to flame wars on the part of those who take it to be literally word-for-word ...

Then comes this:

Sadly too many rabid evangelical nomads,

Solid aurum.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Then comes this:

Solid aurum.

You don't consider yourself to be rabid? (Not literally infected with rabies, of course.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough -- let's allegorize it -- like I did in the first place by invoking "eons."

How about you tell me how angiosperms existed for eons without the sun?

(Or are you now going to tell me that, not only are the words allegorical, but the order of the allegories need to be rearranged?)

You are still being too literal. And yes, the order does need to be rearranged. It is only another creation story that is not significantly different from most others.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I say it was an allegory? No.

Then tell me how they existed literally without the sun.

Can you tell me anything?

It's an ancient document,

It's "quick".

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

Do you know what that means?

... that has zip to with science.

I've only been saying there here for nine years now.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't consider yourself to be rabid? (Not literally infected with rabies, of course.)

I consider he moaned about "flaming" ... then went and flamed, himself.

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've only been saying there here for nine years now.

Actually lchm seems to have the correct approach. When it comes to science the Bible is of no use. It's value lies in its being a moral guide for people. Not a science or history book.

If a Muslim declared that because the Koran said 2 + 2 = 10 would that weaken or strengthen his religion in your viewpoint?

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, the order does need to be rearranged.

LOL -- that's what I thought.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Then comes this:

Solid aurum.

You left this out:

'....roam these cyber corridors (as I did - though not here) demanding submission to it, and issue peals of damnation to all and sundry who dare to insist that the subject of origins has very little to do with Evolution. ....'

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually lchm seems to have the correct approach. When it comes to science the Bible is of no use.

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL -- that's what I thought.

You know that the Bible is wrong when it comes to the various stories in Genesis. By trying to claim that they are true you lower all of Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

You left this out:

Flaming is flaming -- no matter if it's one word, a sentence, or a paragraph.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I consider he moaned about "flaming" ... then went and flamed, himself.

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

You have a penchant for playing games and going right off the topic.

I don't enjoy you comments to my threads, as they represent a form and style of evangelicalism that is both immature and lacking in an sort of real contribution to the topics being discussed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

Very possibly so. And clearly not all that is in Gate's diary would be correct or even true. For once I agree with you one hundred percent.