The tip of the ice berg

[Bungle_Bear]

Like it says there is little agreement

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Be careful, chief.

Paul warned about putting too much stock in some things:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1. Philosophy
2. Deceit
3. Tradition
4. Elements

And when hermeneutically considered, we should tend to think that Paul meant to refer to "bad or misplaced uses of philosophy" rather than just to a general use of philosophy on the whole ... otherwise, Paul has some explaining to do regarding his fiasco atop Mars Hill in Athens.

And yes, my use of the adverb "otherwise" conditions my meaning in framing Paul's preaching in Athens as a "fiasco."

 

[Astrid]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Me either

 

[AV1611VET]

And when hermeneutically considered, we should tend to think that Paul meant to refer to "bad or misplaced uses of philosophy" rather than just to a general use of philosophy on the whole ...

That assumes we know the difference ahead of time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That assumes we know the difference ahead of time.

I'm not sure what a locus of time has to do with it, whether before or after. It's mostly a matter of willingness to better understand, whenever that willingness may manifests itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure what a locus of time has to do with it, whether before or after. It's mostly a matter of willingness to better understand, whenever that willingness may manifests itself.

Eve thought that too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Eve thought that too.

What is that supposed to mean, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is that supposed to mean, AV?

What you said, reminded me of her.

It's mostly a matter of willingness to better understand,

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What you said, reminded me of her.
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Why would what I said remind you of Eve, I wonder?

Sadly enough, if you think what I said echos Eve in any kind of way, then you've likely misunderstood me.

 

[ruthiesea]

You cannot discuss creationism using science because it ain’t science. It’s religious belief which does not agree with other religious beliefs. You cannot discuss the science behind it because there isn’t any.

Creationism science = oxymoron.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation science = oxymoron.

Yup.

Creation Science is to me an oxymoron.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yup.

Great. Having established that creationism isn't a science, we can then conclude that it's not a competing scientific theory deserving equal time (or indeed any time) with evolution.

As a series of etiological stories attached to a particular religious sect, it belongs squarely in the realm of mythology... and will be taught around the same time as the lessons on the Pyramid Texts and Popol Vuh.

Perhaps afterwards, we'll discuss the "world on the turtle's back," stories...

 

[AV1611VET]

Great. Having established that creationism isn't a science, we can then conclude that it's not a competing scientific theory deserving equal time (or indeed any time) with evolution.

That is correct.

As a series of etiological stories attached to a particular religious sect, it belongs squarely in the realm of mythology...

That is incorrect.

As the truth, it belongs squarely in the realm of history.

This bears repeating:

Creationism belongs in history class, not science class.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is incorrect.

As the truth, it belongs squarely in the realm of history.

"Truth" requires evidence to confirm that it is, in fact, truth.

You've repeated ad nauseum that you have "nothing."

And in the realm of history, something.... anything, really, pwns "nothing" every day of the week... and twice on Sunday.

This bears repeating:

No, it doesn't.

Come back when you have something.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Truth" requires evidence to confirm that it is, in fact, truth.

You can have truths without evidence.

In 50 BC, was Neptune a planet? was the Mariana Trench in existence? did SN1987A exist?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can have truths without evidence.

In 50 BC, was Neptune a planet? was the Mariana Trench in existence? did SN1987A exist?

Sorry, AV, but if you want your truth taught as truth, you need evidence.

You're starting with "nothing," to which you add your own say-so...

... which puts you deep in the red.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, AV, but if you want your truth taught as truth, you need evidence.

And therein lies academia's blind spot.

And that's a major reason I don't accept what academia says [pun:] sight unseen [:intended].

 

[TLK Valentine]

And therein lies academia's blind spot.

And that's a major reason I don't accept what academia says [pun:] sight unseen [:intended].

Seething envy is not evidence. It's hardly a "blind spot" for academia that your endorsement makes a given position less credible... it's years of experience.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You can have truths without evidence.

In 50 BC, was Neptune a planet?

No, he was a god

was the Mariana Trench in existence?

Yes, but it didn't have a human assigned name

did SN1987A exist?

No, it blew up about 160,000 years ago.

More to the point, though, none of those were truths. If you don't know what a word means, it's best not to use it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it blew up about 160,000 years ago.

You mean Sanduleak went supernova 168,000 years ago?