evolution and scientists motives

[RickG]

Let me backtrack:

Adam & Eve were mutant, copy errors; made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lakini bila shaka, anasema wewe.

Not quite a proper saying in Swahili. Try again.

If you are trying to say "says you" then the answer is no, all branches of science says your myth never happened. You have admitted you have no evidence that supports your foolishness.

So you as much as admitted you were wrong.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You got that right!

... Thank you!

Please stop misattributing my quotes.

 

[seeking Christ]

I think it isn't that there aren't any biologist who believe in YEC or OEC... but that they don't use biology to get there.

I knew a Phd in microbiology who found god during the process of writing his thesis. I won't say he is a creationist or evolution denier, but he is adamant that things didn't happen per the standard, current claim.

 

[seeking Christ]

How do you know that science is not God's method of communicating reality to us? Provided that there is a god, I'd say that God's word is not the actual words on the pages of a book that may or may not have actually been inspired by him, but the evidence that can be gathered by observing his creation.

False dichotomy. Both books are valid. Both sources give us different types of information

 

[Subduction Zone]

I knew a Phd in microbiology who found god during the process of writing his thesis. I won't say he is a creationist or evolution denier, but he is adamant that things didn't happen per the standard, current claim.

Yes, writing a thesis can be very traumatic for some individuals.

Your friend seemed to know enough to realize that there was no scientific support for his beliefs. In other words he was reacting to the fact that he could not fully understand the subject he was writing about.

 

[seeking Christ]

Yes, writing a thesis can be very traumatic for some individuals.

Your friend seemed to know enough to realize that there was no scientific support for his beliefs.

Way to completely project your own presuppositions upon what was written

 

[Subduction Zone]

Way to completely project your own presuppositions upon what was written

And you weren't guilty of the same?

Seriously there is no controversy when it comes to the theory of evolution.

Now if you want to involve your own personal religious beliefs one way or another that is fine with me. But there is not doubt about the fact that we are all share a common ancestor. And I don't mean just you and me, included are apes, ferrets, rats, fish and even trees.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

False dichotomy. Both books are valid. Both sources give us different types of information

And when they conflict? What are you going to trust? The actual direct work of god, or a translated text of book by a forgotten author who thought he might be saying the words of god.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The Bible said it, that settles it.

If you think the Ark sank at one point, or never got off the ground, that's your prerogative; just as it's my prerogative to think otherwise.

You are missing the point. Your own belief that the real world is tainted and untrustworthy has to include the Bible. There's no way around it. The Bible is part of the real, physical world.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are missing the point. Your own belief that the real world is tainted and untrustworthy has to include the Bible. There's no way around it. The Bible is part of the real, physical world.

I don't believe the Bible is 'tainted and untrustworthy' like the real, physical world is. It is being supernaturally preserved by God, Himself. Many leaders of the past have tried to eradicate It from the world, and many have failed.

The real world is tainted with sin, the Bible isn't. Does your car sin?

The attitude Nathanael had ...

John 1:46a And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

... is still prevalent today, isn't it?

Only today, that mindset is applied to the whole Bible ... not just Nazareth.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't believe the Bible is 'tainted and untrustworthy' like the real, physical world is.

Even though the Bible is a man-made object in the real, physical world.

It is being supernaturally preserved by God, Himself.

Very covenient. But unfortunately, you have no way of knowing that it isn't tainted. You are stuck with that problem the minute you dismiss the real world as untrustworthy.

Many leaders of the past have tried to eradicate It from the world, and many have failed.

It's mere existence is not in itself proof of anything, any more than existence of any other book written by humans is proof in itself of anything. You have to have something to verify its contents by. That is called the real world. Your dismissal of the real world as tainted and untrustworthy denies you that. For all you know, the Bible might be the most untrustworthy and tainted thing in the whole universe, you have no way of telling otherwise.

The real world is tainted with sin, the Bible isn't. Does your car sin?

I take it you have never seen Fawlty Towers.

But sin isn't a useful concept. The causes of human misery in the world is more useful.

The attitude Nathanael had ...

John 1:46a And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

... is still prevalent today, isn't it?

Only today, that mindset is applied to the whole Bible ... not just Nazareth.

And that mindset is rendered irrelevant because of your own beliefs about the nature of the real world. I'm afraid your beliefs ultimately mean that you have nothing that you can guarantee isn't tainted, including the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even though the Bible is a man-made object in the real, physical world.

QV please: Verbal Plenary Inspiration.

Thus the Bible can be untainted in a world that is tainted; just like Jesus was.

Hamartiology does not negate Verbal Plenary Inspiration.

 

[TLK Valentine]

QV please: Verbal Plenary Inspiration.

Thus the Bible can be untainted in a world that is tainted; just like Jesus was.

Hamartiology does not negate Verbal Plenary Inspiration.

Nor does it confirm it. You guys can concoct as many man-made rules as you want, AV -- but neither you nor any other man has the power to make them so.

As much as you would like to or think you can, you simply cannot make God or reality dance to your tune.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

QV please: Verbal Plenary Inspiration.

Thus the Bible can be untainted in a world that is tainted; just like Jesus was.

Hamartiology does not negate Verbal Plenary Inspiration.

And again, because of your beliefs about the real world, you have no way of knowing that. All you have is an old man-made book. Books make all sorts of claims, but without the real world to check them with, which you've ruled out, you have no way of knowing if their contents are trustworthy or full of lies. You are, as they say, up the creek without a paddle.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nor does it confirm it. You guys can concoct as many man-made rules as you want, AV -- but neither you nor any other man has the power to make them so.

As much as you would like to or think you can, you simply cannot make God or reality dance to your tune.

And again, because of your beliefs about the real world, you have no way of knowing that. All you have is an old man-made book. Books make all sorts of claims, but without the real world to check them with, which you've ruled out, you have no way of knowing if their contents are trustworthy or full of lies. You are, as they say, up the creek without a paddle.

This is a major reason you guys are so intolerant of us. You deny the Bible, basic doctrine, and suppositions.

What's next? denying us?

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is a major reason you guys are so intolerant of us. You deny the Bible, basic doctrine, and suppositions.

What's next? denying us?

I think we just did that already -- your idea of "basic doctrine" is meaningless rubbish with a tenuous connection (on a good day) to reality; why shouldn't we deny it?

 

[RickG]

This is a major reason you guys are so intolerant of us. You deny the Bible, basic doctrine, and suppositions.

Or, it could be that you are viewing some of the biblical stories as literal history that were originally meant to be taken in the context of an allegory.

By recognizing that, one does not have to deny well known physical facts, or deliberately misrepresent physical science. The latter is what really disturbs me. If I have to make stuff up to support my religious beliefs.....wow, just wow. It seems to me that the latter abandons faith.

 

[Tomk80]

Or, it could be that you are viewing some of the biblical stories as literal history that were originally meant to be taken in the context of an allegory.

By recognizing that, one does not have to deny well known physical facts, or deliberately misrepresent physical science. The latter is what really disturbs me. If I have to make stuff up to support my religious beliefs.....wow, just wow. It seems to me that the latter abandons faith.

Or it could be that some of his views would be viewed as loony and internally contradictory even by your average creationist who takes the bible literally. Same holds for dad.

KJV-only. Even many creationists think this is a loony idea.
Adam and Eve spoke English? I think the only person in the world thinking this idea is not insane is AV (well, possibly dad, so make that two).
Embedded age? Answers in Genesis rejects that idea.

It has nothing to do with us being "hostile", and everything to do with AV making stuff up on the spot and thinking that somehow constitutes an argument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or it could be that some of his views would be viewed as loony and internally contradictory even by your average creationist who takes the bible literally. Same holds for dad.

Indeed -- but of course, AV wants the privilege of having his rubbish taken seriously without actually earning it... how typical.