Evolutionist lies

[laptoppop]

Regarding the original topic -- I am much more careful than many about using the word "lie". To me, for it to be a lie, it needs to have several elements:
1) you know it isn't true
2) you mean to deceive the hearer

I tend to believe the best I can about people. In many cases, I might see their position as wrong - but that alone doesn't make them liars. They may even have been presented with what I see as conclusive evidence against their position -- but unless they accept that evidence as true, they wouldn't be "lying" to continue to present their own position.

In other cases, there may be innacuracies - but is there an attempt to decieve? For example, in the genome percentages -- I wouldn't be surprised if the editors were willing to concede after consideration that 95% (or even lower) was a more appropriate percentage. There are two possible ways that this would not be a "lie" -- 1) they could just be a bit sloppy, and think it didn't make much difference or 2) they could have not considered all of the data and thereby just repeated numbers they've heard/used before. In both cases they would be "wrong" -- but they wouldn't meet the test for a "lie".

Unfortunately, both YECs and TEs can charge folks with lying all too quickly.

When you believe in a particular interpretational model - it is natural and human to accept evidence for that model with less questioning. In such a way, someone could end up continuing to use weak arguments, even in the face of greater opposition. It isn't lying - its giving the wrong weight to different things. From the point of view of the teller, the arguments are less likely, but still true.

The question becomes: when do our innacuracies rise to the level of lying or gross negligence?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Not at all. Just that the scriptures came to us from God through men - and He has all knowledge, including knowledge of the future and of reality. Prophecy has often been used by God to establish that these people were not just working on their own intellect and knowledge.

Is it so hard to admit that God can communicate with us?

When did I ever say that God cannot communicate with us? That was never in question.

But if God wanted people to understand Pi and its correct ratio, why did he put in a way that it would take thousands of years and lots of excuses and mathematical leaping through hoops to wring it out of the text.

Maybe the measurements were never really important; maybe there is a deeper meaning to the Bible than its face value.

 

[thereisnogreaterlove]

??

 

[laptoppop]

But if God wanted people to understand Pi and its correct ratio, why did he put in a way that it would take thousands of years and lots of excuses and mathematical leaping through hoops to wring it out of the text.

The point of the passage was not to describe Pi - that is an extremely minor side matter. However,
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (NASB)
For reasons only known to Him, God has put incredible depths of riches in the Scriptures that we can spend an entire lifetime hunting through only to scratch the surface.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The point of the passage was not to describe Pi - that is an extremely minor side matter. However,
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (NASB)
For reasons only known to Him, God has put incredible depths of riches in the Scriptures that we can spend an entire lifetime hunting through only to scratch the surface.

You say this, yet deny creation has mysteries for us to dig out, that only a shallow reading of the creation story is enough to learn all there is to learn about creation?

Could not evolution, deep time, and all the other fun stuff that science pries out of creation every day also be things concealed by God for us to later find?

Why not?

 

[laptoppop]

Huh? I've never denied that the general revelation (the creation) has mysteries for us. I just take the position that the special revelation (scriptures, the incarnation, etc.) has more authoritative information for us.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Huh? I've never denied that the general revelation (the creation) has mysteries for us. I just take the position that the special revelation (scriptures, the incarnation, etc.) has more authoritative information for us.

So when you learned how to drive a car you consulted the Bible for instructions rather than listening to your instructor or reading a driving manual, right?

 

[laptoppop]

So when you learned how to drive a car you consulted the Bible for instructions rather than listening to your instructor or reading a driving manual, right?

Of course not (although the Scriptures do have some bearing on road rage! ) Where the Scriptures are silent, there's no conflict. Where they address something, they are accurate.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Of course not (although the Scriptures do have some bearing on road rage! ) Where the Scriptures are silent, there's no conflict. Where they address something, they are accurate.

Okay so not an authority on driving...

What about sheep breeding, should I rely on the Bibles recommendations on getting spotted sheep or should I consult a book about breeding sheep for spots and stripes?

 

[laptoppop]

Read the story again. The Bible doesn't say it caused the spotted sheep, just that he thought it did. Big difference. It is accurately reporting the erroneous views of a particular person.

Note: this is wandering far afield from the topic. Its been gone over several times in different threads already - I don't really see a point in continuing.

 

[RichardT]

evilutionists say a rok can evolve into a chair!!1!

96 years old? lol, lies...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Read the story again. The Bible doesn't say it caused the spotted sheep, just that he thought it did. Big difference. It is accurately reporting the erroneous views of a particular person.

Note: this is wandering far afield from the topic. Its been gone over several times in different threads already - I don't really see a point in continuing.

Okay not an authority on animal breeding...

So erroneous views on animal breeding are okay, but one has to make up long excuses for erroneous measurements?

Now why is it again that the Bible is not an authority on so many workings of physical creation, but it suddenly becomes an authority when you might be related to another one of God’s creations?

 

[laptoppop]

Did you read my post? The Bible was completely accurate. It would have been in error if it had not said that the person thought that was the way breeding worked. It did not say that it worked that way, just that the person thought it did. Don't you understand the difference?

edit: tell you what - i really don't want to hijack this thread. I'll start a new one where we and others can hash this out a bit.

 

[Smidlee]

Okay so not an authority on driving...

What about sheep breeding, should I rely on the Bibles recommendations on getting spotted sheep or should I consult a book about breeding sheep for spots and stripes?

Jacob was a trickster but God bless him in spite of all his dirty tricks. After God wrestled Jacob, he then become Isreal. So the answer is no... God doesn't want you to be a trickster no matter if your dirty little tricks work or not.

 

[theFijian]

Jacob was a trickster but God bless him in spite of all his dirty tricks. After God wrestled Jacob, he then become Isreal. So the answer is no... God doesn't want you to be a trickster no matter if your dirty little tricks work or not.

I quite agree, and a pertinent lesson for some professional Creaitonists there.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I think Smidlee has me on Ignore, he has not come up with a single reference for the numerous assertions he had made. Even though I have asked him repeatedly.

There has been the odd time when someone has asked me to back up what I have said (sometimes to challenge what I am saying and sometimes to get more information). I have provided references each and every time.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Did you read my post? The Bible was completely accurate. It would have been in error if it had not said that the person thought that was the way breeding worked. It did not say that it worked that way, just that the person thought it did. Don't you understand the difference?

edit: tell you what - i really don't want to hijack this thread. I'll start a new one where we and others can hash this out a bit.

I never said it was an error to write what people believed at the time. Even if those beliefs were in error. The Bible was not making a point about breeding sheep, just as it was not making a point about Pi, or the shape of the Earth, or how it did or did not move.

It is only if one tries to make the Bible into an authority on those subjects instead of a book on theological ideas, that the erroneous ideas held in the Bible become a problem.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I never said it was an error to write what people believed at the time. Even if those beliefs were in error. The Bible was not making a point about breeding sheep, just as it was not making a point about Pi, or the shape of the Earth, or how it did or did not move.

I am quite sure that the Bible was written in complete accordance with the scientific understandding of people at the time. Of course, that those beliefs have since been shown to be wrong rather proves that God did not tell them those beliefs direct

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I never said it was an error to write what people believed at the time. Even if those beliefs were in error. The Bible was not making a point about breeding sheep, just as it was not making a point about Pi, or the shape of the Earth, or how it did or did not move.

It is only if one tries to make the Bible into an authority on those subjects instead of a book on theological ideas, that the erroneous ideas held in the Bible become a problem.

I am quite sure that the Bible was written in complete accordance with the scientific understandding of people at the time. Of course, that those beliefs have since been shown to be wrong rather proves that God did not tell them those beliefs direct

this is the distinction between using and teaching. It is impossible to communicate in a language without introducing all kinds of culture and social ideas with the communication. This is the big problem with natural language machine translation, you have to have this enormous database accessing all kinds of cultural and social information about the writer in order to translate anything more than simply, 1st year foreign language studies type of ideas.

it is no difference with the Scriptures, a huge amount of cultural and proto-scientific information is necessary just to talk about things, let alone communicate big and important religious and theological ideas which require and even deeper understanding of these cultural pieces.

Now are these things specific to either Hebraic or even 1st C Hebrew-greco culture being taught as binding on subsequent readers of Scripture, that is their way of looking at the world is authoritative. Or are these things incidental to the message and are being used by the writer to communicate something else.


simply put, can i believe that the universe is mostly empty space or must i understand as the ancients Hebrews that there is a solid firmament above my head?
the issue is a hermeneutical one, what exactly does inspiration and authority of Scripture mean? did God correct the science of that day as it is authoritative and true or did God use that science to transmit something of far greater value?
What is the POV of the writers, their culture's or God's?

There is simply no evidence that the ancient Hebrews who for generations transmitted the first few chapters of Genesis as oral history knew anything more about the world in a scientific nature then did their neighbors. There are no scientific easter eggs hidden in gen 1-5 that support the idea that God overroad their normal cultural ideas of how the world was. it is in every scientific way the same as the common notions of that day.

so what is the relationship of a believer to Gen 1-5?
do these ideas trump modern science? or do they have to be seen as artifacts required by the communication and representing a POV that is not required, not being taught?

 

[RichardT]

That's what I love about this C&E controversy, so many opinions floating around and so little understanding of whats actually involved

Mark Kennedy said that