Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[BPPLEE]

So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings? They cant fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory. Intelligent design? Maybe God accidentaly added a too many numbers on his calculater when he was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance.

Source:Society for Experimental BiologySummary:The flightless ostrich uses its wings as sophisticated air-rudders and braking aids when running at high speed and may provide valuable information about how its dinosaur ancestors used their feathered forelimbs to move more efficiently. A small leg muscle, if also present in dinosaurs may have reduced the energetic cost of carrying a heavy body.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'll take a look at it.

Thanks the heads up.

Maybe I'll go in there and rattle some sabers!

ETA: Oh! Oh!

I clicked on you link and got this:

Huh, are you banned from the thread? Lol

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh, are you banned from the thread? Lol

Not that I know of!

 

[Roderick Spode]

No, I'm not talking about parables. I'm talking about the entire collection of texts we call the Bible.

I kind of lost track of this particular conversation, but I believe it's up to the individual to decide which parts of the bible they consider literal, figure of speech, allegory, poetic, stories, etc.

The question I have is do you, and some others, view a literal interpretation of, say Genesis, unacceptable?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I kind of lost track of this particular conversation, but I believe it's up to the individual to decide which parts of the bible they consider literal, figure of speech, allegory, poetic, stories, etc.

The question I have is do you, and some others, view a literal interpretation of, say Genesis, unacceptable?

Shouldn’t deciding which parts are supposed to be taken literal or figurative be up to the author? The Bible is a history book, history isn’t subjective.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I don't know if it was or not. Doesn't matter to the message. But there is evidence of a great flood in the Middle East at about the right time.

I'm aware that there's evidence of a great flood that some believe was a catalyst for creation of a myth(s). I'm just not sure how you separate the idea of a message in story only format, from an actual literal event.

There are I'm sure messages we could suggest from any historical event, like WWII, whether a story or not. The difference would be personal testimony of real atrocities versus just telling a story about them.

 

[dlamberth]

Shouldn’t deciding which parts are supposed to be taken literal or figurative be up to the author? The Bible is a history book, history isn’t subjective.

History that's passed down from one generation to the next is totally subjective. Aside from that, the Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It's a book about ones relationship with God.

 

[Roderick Spode]

That's the problem for YE creationists. They have to invent all sorts of unscriptural miracles to make their doctrines believable. A major red flag for any doctrine.


Sure. Radioisotope dating shows that humans themselves are much. much older than a few thousand years. Creationists, when shown the results. argue that physics was different in that time, and God changed the rules later.

We see supernovae from time to time. Most are millions of light-years away. The usual creationist argument is that God created starlight on the way to the Earth, to maintain an appearance of age. But in this case, God is showing us a star that never existed. Given that God is truth, such an unscriptural miracle is antithetical to Christian belief.

The distribution of organism in the world is inconsistent with all animals being released in the Middle East, finding their way to other continents and islands. Creationists argue that Pangea separated in less than a century to its current state. Problem is, the energy to accelerate those continents and then slow them back to the present rate would be released as heat and boil the seas. The response is yet another miracle.

Many more of those, if you want to look at them.

You base the idea of YECs creating unscriptural miracles on viewing the written Word as a story, and what humans and human instruments conclude in conjunction with your earlier question "were you there?". If Jesus Christ came to you today in divinely unquestionable form, and clearly told you that the written Word in Genesis creation is absolutely literal, what would your reaction be? Would you consider that a claim defying the law of non-contradiction, equivalent to saying your round clock on the wall is actually square with 4 sides?

 

[BNR32FAN]

History that's passed down from one generation to the next is totally subjective. Aside from that, the Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It's a book about ones relationship with God.

History itself is not subjective. History is the telling of past events. Past events are not subjective to personal or popular opinions, beliefs, or interpretations. I agree that the Bible does teach us how to have a personal relationship with God, amen to that but you can’t deny that it was also written to give us a historical record of events that took place. That is absolutely undeniable.

 

[BCP1928]

History itself is not subjective.

Right

History is the telling of past events.

The telling of history is subjective.

Past events are not subjective to personal or popular opinions, beliefs, or interpretations. I agree that the Bible does teach us how to have a personal relationship with God, amen to that but you can’t deny that it was also written to give us a historical record of events that took place. That is absolutely undeniable.

There are many ways to tell history, and many ways in which history is told in the Bible, none of which are in use by actual historians today.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Right

The telling of history is subjective.

There are many ways to tell history, and many ways in which history is told in the Bible, none of which are in use by actual historians today.

This thread is about ostrich wings, am I allowed to discuss this here or are you going to shut me down when I prove you wrong again?

 

[AV1611VET]

History that's passed down from one generation to the next is totally subjective. Aside from that, the Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. It's a book about ones relationship with God.

The Bible is a history book, written in advance.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Bible is a history book, written in advance.

Well some of it was written in advance. Most of it was written after the events took place.

 

[The Barbarian]

You base the idea of YECs creating unscriptural miracles on viewing the written Word as a story, and what humans and human instruments conclude in conjunction with your earlier question "were you there?". If Jesus Christ came to you today in divinely unquestionable form, and clearly told you that the written Word in Genesis creation is absolutely literal, what would your reaction be?

Surprise. If He came to me and told me the Pythagorean theorem was wrong, I'd believe Him. But given the evidence, that isn't very likely. This, I think is at the heart of YE creationism. Mark Twain once said "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

"Is your faith great enough to believe God if He told you something impossible? Given that God is not deceptive, I have no reason at all tho think that He would put us in such a situation.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm aware that there's evidence of a great flood that some believe was a catalyst for creation of a myth(s). I'm just not sure how you separate the idea of a message in story only format, from an actual literal event.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter. God isn't testing us to see if we distinguish allegory from the flooding of the Black Sea Basin. That's not what the message for is means.

There are I'm sure messages we could suggest from any historical event, like WWII, whether a story or not. The difference would be personal testimony of real atrocities versus just telling a story about them.

Would you be disillusioned with Jesus if there never actually was a Good Samaritan?

 

[The Barbarian]

I kind of lost track of this particular conversation, but I believe it's up to the individual to decide which parts of the bible they consider literal, figure of speech, allegory, poetic, stories, etc.

Yes. I, for example, believe that Adam and Eve were two actual people. I believe that the Flood might or might not be a literal event. And so on. Opinions on things like this do not define who is a Christian. On the other hand, the divinity of Jesus, and His death and resurrection are not optional beliefs for an orthodox Christian.

The question I have is do you, and some others, view a literal interpretation of, say Genesis, unacceptable?

I think that a literal interpretation of Genesis is entirely consistent with the essential doctrines of Christian belief. Creationists, assuming they accept the assertions of the Apostle's Creed, are no less orthodox Christians than the rest of us.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The book of Genesis has too much detailed information to be derived from Moses. And given Moses’ character we see in Exodus I highly doubt that he would’ve taken it upon himself to alter what God had told him to write. One thing we can see about Moses’ character over and over throughout Exodus is that he followed God’s instructions to a T. Moses was given extremely detailed instructions on how to build the Ark of the Covenant, how to build the tabernacle, how to build an alter and very explicit instructions on how rituals and ceremonies were to be handled in respect to these. I mean the level of meticulous detail is almost insane and it was all on him to make sure that everything was done according to God’s instructions. So I just don’t see Moses changing the snake in the garden, it doesn’t seem to follow along with his meticulous nature.

I agree that Moses was meticulous, and followed any instruction from God to a "T". I don't think though that the illustration of a non-literal snake, who was definitely Satan would break that rule. Whether by a personal revelation, or having the information passed down.

Some of the reasons I don't think the snake was literal are, the snake was part of God's creation addressed as being good. The description given of the snake was of an evil nature. It seems the earliest versions of the bible referred to the snake as separate from any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, which were addressed as good. The temptation itself seemed to be the main focus of Eve. There was no apparent surprise element in seeing a talking snake, or captivation of any sort. I had also read a reference to this from a website called Agapegeek which I agree with, that noted 1 Corinthians 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." being all inclusive to humanity including Adam and Eve. Satan being an invisible force, attacking our minds.

The cultural elements I think influenced the reference to Satan as a snake is that the Israelites observed snakes fairly often, observing their hardships as a slithering creature eating dust, being trampled on, being held captive for magician entertainment, etc. Of course Satan describes himself as one walking around the earth. And snakes were symbolic at the time of Moses as a source of healing as well as being crafty, so serpentine symbolism didn't seem rare.

But, I could be totally wrong. It's just an opinion I hold at this time.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree that Moses was meticulous, and followed any instruction from God to a "T". I don't think though that the illustration of a non-literal snake, who was definitely Satan would break that rule. Whether by a personal revelation, or having the information passed down.

Some of the reasons I don't think the snake was literal are, the snake was part of God's creation addressed as being good. The description given of the snake was of an evil nature. It seems the earliest versions of the bible referred to the snake as separate from any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, which were addressed as good. The temptation itself seemed to be the main focus of Eve. There was no apparent surprise element in seeing a talking snake, or captivation of any sort. I had also read a reference to this from a website called Agapegeek which I agree with, that noted 1 Corinthians 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." being all inclusive to humanity including Adam and Eve. Satan being an invisible force, attacking our minds.

The cultural elements I think influenced the reference to Satan as a snake is that the Israelites observed snakes fairly often, observing their hardships as a slithering creature eating dust, being trampled on, being held captive for magician entertainment, etc. Of course Satan describes himself as one walking around the earth. And snakes were symbolic at the time of Moses as a source of healing as well as being crafty, so serpentine symbolism didn't seem rare.

But, I could be totally wrong. It's just an opinion I hold at this time.

Bless you brother, the story had to have come to Moses from God. I would say if anything perhaps God used the snake as a symbol for satan but I just highly doubt that Moses would’ve taken it upon himself to alter what God had told him to write.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of the reasons I don't think the snake was literal are,

I believe it was a four-legged animal, because of this passage:

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Possibly a red dragon beast.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree that Moses was meticulous, and followed any instruction from God to a "T". I don't think though that the illustration of a non-literal snake, who was definitely Satan would break that rule. Whether by a personal revelation, or having the information passed down.

Some of the reasons I don't think the snake was literal are, the snake was part of God's creation addressed as being good. The description given of the snake was of an evil nature. It seems the earliest versions of the bible referred to the snake as separate from any beast of the field which the Lord God had made, which were addressed as good. The temptation itself seemed to be the main focus of Eve. There was no apparent surprise element in seeing a talking snake, or captivation of any sort. I had also read a reference to this from a website called Agapegeek which I agree with, that noted 1 Corinthians 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." being all inclusive to humanity including Adam and Eve. Satan being an invisible force, attacking our minds.

The cultural elements I think influenced the reference to Satan as a snake is that the Israelites observed snakes fairly often, observing their hardships as a slithering creature eating dust, being trampled on, being held captive for magician entertainment, etc. Of course Satan describes himself as one walking around the earth. And snakes were symbolic at the time of Moses as a source of healing as well as being crafty, so serpentine symbolism didn't seem rare.

But, I could be totally wrong. It's just an opinion I hold at this time.

I see the snake in the Garden as God's "left hand man," a fixer (and shape-shifter) like the Coyote figure in Southwest Native American religions. If the snake was Satan, he was the Satan of the OT, the one who vexed Job. Christians have magnified the idea of Satan into a duelist Manichean evil deity, but that Satan is not the snake in the garden.