Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[The Barbarian]

If every living thing on the face of the earth were "wiped out" (NIV), how were koalas killed by a flood in Mesopotamia?

But that's not what it says. "On the face of the land." is what it says. "Earth" meaning "land." But it doesn't say "world." Which solves the problem of how koalas got to the Middle East, and then found their way back again after the flood.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, and they also made a distinction between Christianity and design theory. The verdict was not based on their religious fanaticism.

Well, let's take a look...

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Yeah, it's based on their religious fanaticism.

There really never was a "design theory." It makes no testable predictions, only post-hoc declarations. Which is why it's a religious belief, not a theory.

I understand that they infuriate many like yourself

I don't care what religion they follow, as long as they don't try to impose it on others in public schools. In fact, there are IDers who seem to have realized this themselves, and while the organization remains opposed to religious freedoms in the Constitution, some IDers have moved away from such a stance.

Michael Denton, for example, seems to have accepted Darwinian evolution, only insisting that a "designer" pre-loaded the universe to make it happen.

Obviously they weren't in this trial. It was essentially a witch trial of sorts.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs used the IDer's own words to make their case. IDer Michael Behe pretty much gave away the farm during cross-examination:

Q: And using your definition intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A: Yes

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one.
Transcript from Kitzmiller vs. Dover

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Can you give me an example?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Was it a wonder drug?

Only on paper.

Did it do what it was manufactured to do?

In my opinion, yes.

(make money)

I believe there's a little more to it.

But I'll keep my opinion to myself.

 

[AV1611VET]

... not be a flood anyway.

If the Flood was just a local one, and God promised not to do it again, then He broke His promise with Hurricane Katrina.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But that's not what it says. "On the face of the land." is what it says. "Earth" meaning "land." But it doesn't say "world." Which solves the problem of how koalas got to the Middle East, and then found their way back again after the flood.

Maybe. But, coupled with details such as building an ark instead of just telling Noah to pack up (ala Abraham) and move away. Answers In Genesis (How Long Did It Take for Noah to Build the Ark?) gives Noah at least 20 years of building time. He could have gone anywhere: Russia, China, cross the Bering Strait to Alaska.

It's a stretch to think that this story describes a local flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

I saw bronzed shoes when I was young. Was that a bronze age ?

If bronzed shoes can spark a bronze age, think what a peccary tooth can do.

Scientists don't need a boatload of evidence to push their ideas on us.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think we do see some cultural influences and imagery from Moses and/or his contemporaries in their descriptions in the garden. I personally don't think there was a literal snake, a symbol common during Moses' time. I think the snake was the term used to describe Satan. There are a few times the bible won't use a person's name when identifying them. I think this might be one of them.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

1 Timothy 6:20 (NKJV)

"20 O Timothy! nGuard what was committed to your trust, oavoiding the profane and 6idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—"
Partly , when used properly. Actually, if used here few who are <hopefully> faithful to Jesus would reply to vain threads Scripture warns against, eh ?

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a stretch to think that this story describes a local flood.

Comes down to what the Bible says. It doesn't say the world was flooded. It says land was flooded. Why not just accept it as it is in the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Scripture doesn't say it was global. "Global"is man's add-on to God's word.

You a literalist now, are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

After recent made up plagues, they don't need any real evidence - hollywood makeup artists, computer generated designs, and for decades putting fear into people about false science, can cause worldwide hysteria ?

Yes, indeed.

I'm still waiting for Y2K to hit.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Comes down to what the Bible says. It doesn't say the world was flooded. It says land was flooded. Why not just accept it as it is in the Bible?

Because that's not what the story, as a whole, says ... as many, many, many Christians agree.

What you seem to have is an apologetic to justify calling the story true. Why not accept it as a myth like every Greek god story?

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? The world was literally flooded. God Says So Personally to Whom He Pleases (little children), while hiding the proof from the educated ones...

Barb says the Scriptures don't say the Flood was global.

Should it?

After all, let's look at the facts:

1. Noah spending 120 years to build an Ark. Why didn't he just pack up and vacate the area?
2. All the animals boarding the Ark. Why didn't they just head outside the perimeter?
3. Noah and company aboard the Ark for a year!? And the Flood was just a local one?
4. How did the Ark get into the mountains of Ararat, if the Flood was just a local one?
5. What was the retaining wall that held the Flood waters in, if the Flood was just a local one?

Imagine, if the Flood was just local, Noah and his family disembarking, and there's a crowd out there laughing their heads off?

I love this picture:

 

[The Barbarian]

Because that's not what the story, as a whole, says ... as many, many, many Christians agree.

What it doesn't say, is that the flood was worldwide. Whatever else it says doesn't matter to that issue.

What you seem to have is an apologetic to justify calling the story true.

Comes down to evidence. Give that there was a great region flood in the area at about the right time, it might very well be literal history. But it doesn't matter if it's allegory or literal history. If you focus on that, you lose the message.

 

[The Barbarian]

You a literalist now, are you?

Doesn't matter to me if it was a regional flood or it if was an allegory. That's not God's point. Why not listen to what He's telling you?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But it doesn't matter if it's allegory or literal history. If you focus on that, you lose the message.

This much I agree on. What matters is why someone included the story.

I had a conversation with someone on these boards many years ago, while I was yet a Christian. He was in a certain amount of physical suffering. I imagine he's dead now. But, it meant a lot to him that Job must have really happened because it simply wouldn't as much if it didn't. I never understood that line of thinking. The story was included to convey a message. The message is conveyed whether it actually happened or didn't. Is the parable of the Good Samaritan missing some meaning because it is "just a parable"? Of course not. I didn't argue with him on that point since to do so would seem spiteful ... just ripping away comfort if I succeeded. So, I let it go.

 

[Estrid]

You write this as if people despairing that may be "god isn't real" and in need of an alternative "turn to evolution". What nonsense. No one "turns to evolution" as a support system or belief system or a substitute for religion. They accept evolution as correct for the explanation of the diversity of living organisms because it is backed by evidence and reason. We do so without any need to leave or change religion and people of all religions accept evolution.

Amazing variety of ways to
misunderstand evolution.

And religion! It's not " everybody
has some religion". I dont

 

[AV1611VET]

Amazing variety of ways to misunderstand evolution.

Does the average lay person understand it?

If so, why pay thousands of dollars to learn it in an academic setting?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd give some real consideration- and rightly
so! - to people's assertions that their interpretation
of bible verses was god inspired and therefore
infallible, IF they all were god inspired to the
same interpretation.

Instead, it changes every time another person
gets inspired.

Excellent point and the counter argument does not, cannot, apply. Scientists' interpretation of the facts (i.e. observations) may differ because those dfifferent interpretations, contested not by rhetoric, but by experiment, are the means by which science moves towards improved explanations of what is observed.
The scientist begina with the honest understanding that we are ignorant and seeks to remove some of that ignorance, while recognising that for evey step forward there may well be a step back - and occassionally twenty steps back. The creationist sees this - apparently as proof of the uselessness of science. The scientist recognises it as its strength - the ability to accept that sometimes we may be mistaken. While I can understand that some could see this as a fatal flaw, I am angered and frustrated by those who assert the whole caboodle is nothing but a tissue of lies and some vast conspiracy.