Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

if it isnt a science book then it cannot be used to attack any science. if it isnt a science book then dont look to it for facts about the universe. the bible is to be interpreted and made relevant to how one should live and perhaps to give insight into the spiritual realm but where it makes physical claims it is wrong wrong and more wrong.

Many such claims are 100% correct. Too bad for you.

i believe we are all here because there is a profound disagreement with that statement. which claims are correct: global flood? not a shred of physical evidence. all but 2-7 of everything dead? inbreeding barres that as a possibility (dont conservationists wish a species with 2-7 individuals could be salvaged) and periods of inbreeding show up in the genes, theres no universal period of inbreeding. any of genesis? completely antithetical to even basic science. the sun standing still? either God thought that the sun revolved around the earth or the sun stood still in the sky which means that the earth stopped spinning (inertia anyone?). water to wine? not if you know anything about chemistry.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Why do you think I would support NAMBLA?

because athiests are amoral? such a silly thing to suggest. pedophilia causes tangible lifelong harm. it is abuse. thats it end of story! wherever you derive that from is irrelevant as long as you can agree that pedophilia is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

Wow -- a complete lack of knowledge about both Christianity and Buddhism.

So, how would you correct my statement?

Originally Posted by juvenissun

In Christian, faith leads to action. Morality is one of the results.
In Buddhism, faith leads to inaction (so, there will be no good and no evil).

 

[juvenissun]

i believe we are all here because there is a profound disagreement with that statement. which claims are correct: global flood? not a shred of physical evidence. all but 2-7 of everything dead? inbreeding barres that as a possibility (dont conservationists wish a species with 2-7 individuals could be salvaged) and periods of inbreeding show up in the genes, theres no universal period of inbreeding. any of genesis? completely antithetical to even basic science. the sun standing still? either God thought that the sun revolved around the earth or the sun stood still in the sky which means that the earth stopped spinning (inertia anyone?). water to wine? not if you know anything about chemistry.

Arrogant. Pride blinded your mind.

Why don't you ask me to give you an example?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't know what "memes" are and all that other stuff you said here

And you're too far away from the internet to "google" it???

, but I'll address this part:

I sure hope so, and I wish I could say MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, but there's still a lot of work to be done.

What I find interesting in debating religion and the Bible with Literalists is that they understand the literal words of the Bible so well, but they often seem to miss the point of any of it. It is for them the same "literary" experience as reading an instruction manual for a coffee maker.

Thankfully the rest of western civilization actually got something deeper from it all. I say that because I love to read literature that draws in all manner of inspiration and concepts. I love touring ancient churches in Europe. I like history and philosophy.

Literalists usually have never taken a philosophy class and have no idea of the history of western thought. The battles that have long gone on around the concepts inherent in the Bible and leveraged off of the bible.

That's why most fundamentalists often don't know who various famous philosophers were. Folks like Leibniz and the "Best of all possible worlds" concept, or Pascal's wager. But Fundamentalists understand it when they are told about it by their minister. For them the world of human thought is always new because they have so little background in it. Unfortunately for them it has no history so they stumble onto concepts and think they've discovered some new unfounded country when in reality its threadbare from being trod upon by countless generations before them.

Fundamentalists' pitiful "limited" world view means that they will stumble, sooner or later, onto one of the greatest aphorism of them all: "those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it".

Literalists are too busy looking at each letter of the text that they miss the words and the sentences.

 

[Split Rock]

What I find interesting in debating religion and the Bible with Literalists is that they understand the literal words of the Bible so well, but they often seem to miss the point of any of it. It is for them the same "literary" experience as reading an instruction manual for a coffee maker.

FYI: In AVET's case, it is a Telephone Book. Just so you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think I would support NAMBLA?

I don't --- in fact, I very seriously don't think you would; but your philosophy would.

 

[AV1611VET]

because athiests are amoral? such a silly thing to suggest. pedophilia causes tangible lifelong harm. it is abuse. thats it end of story! wherever you derive that from is irrelevant as long as you can agree that pedophilia is wrong.

Pedophilia is not just wrong --- it's a gross sin.

Please read the statement I was responding to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fundamentalists' pitiful "limited" world view means that they will stumble, sooner or later, onto one of the greatest aphorism of them all: "those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it".

I seriously doubt you even know what a Fundamentalist is, Thaumaturgy; let alone ever sat under the preaching of one.

You're the spitting image of what I was before I got saved --- (viz., "I saw The Ten Commandments, and now I'm a Bible Scholar").

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't --- in fact, I very seriously don't think you would; but your philosophy would.

Why? My primary moral philosophy is that everybody should be free to do as they wish, provided it does not harm others. There are gray areas that must be dealt with here, but the basic idea is applicable in many situations. With NAMBLA, for instance, there's a very good argument to be had that pedophilia is harmful to children, and thus it should be considered morally wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

[delete]

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[MoonLancer]

[delete]

doh i bet that was really funny. Another /thread avoided?

 

[MoonLancer]

cue the love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXiP76cOego

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

i believe we are all here because there is a profound disagreement with that statement. which claims are correct: global flood? not a shred of physical evidence. all but 2-7 of everything dead? inbreeding barres that as a possibility (dont conservationists wish a species with 2-7 individuals could be salvaged) and periods of inbreeding show up in the genes, theres no universal period of inbreeding. any of genesis? completely antithetical to even basic science. the sun standing still? either God thought that the sun revolved around the earth or the sun stood still in the sky which means that the earth stopped spinning (inertia anyone?). water to wine? not if you know anything about chemistry.

Arrogant. Pride blinded your mind.

Why don't you ask me to give you an example?

i think the bible is largely metaphor and allegory. i dont demand that it reflect reality. but anyone who claims that it makes scientifically correct claims or uses its claims to attack science is demanding such.

if you dont want the bible to be subject to such scrutiny, dont play the science game. thats not arrogance, thats how science works. if you have ever seen genuine scientific debate it is often much more heated than that.

so in that spirit i do ask of you and was asking of you to either comment on my examples or give some examples.

 

[juvenissun]

i think the bible is largely metaphor and allegory. i dont demand that it reflect reality. but anyone who claims that it makes scientifically correct claims or uses its claims to attack science is demanding such.

if you dont want the bible to be subject to such scrutiny, dont play the science game. thats not arrogance, thats how science works. if you have ever seen genuine scientific debate it is often much more heated than that.

so in that spirit i do ask of you and was asking of you to either comment on my examples or give some examples.

There are many. Some are popular and some are not well known (deeper in disciplines). So I would start with a popular one. Remind you that these examples are clear-cut descriptions of natural features. There should be no confusion on what it says.

Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Do you see modern scientific understanding in this verse? (in case you don't, here is the explicit term: hydrological cycle)

 

[Chalnoth]

Do you see modern scientific understanding in this verse? (in case you don't, here is the explicit term: hydrological cycle)

Sounds to me more like they believed that the rivers literally flowed from the sea to the sea.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds to me more like they believed that the rivers literally flowed from the sea to the sea.

How is so?

If you know the landform of Israel, everyone knows that all rivers there start from the central highland.

 

[Chalnoth]

How is so?

If you know the landform of Israel, everyone knows that all rivers there start from the central highland.

Certainly. But did they know that at the time? This was the bronze age, after all. If they had talked about rain at all, then I think the case would be closed that they had some clue as to the hydrological cycle, which wouldn't terribly surprise me, but they seemed to have little enough clue about so many other things that it also wouldn't surprise me if they thought that rivers literally flowed both to and from the sea.

 

[juvenissun]

Certainly. But did they know that at the time? This was the bronze age, after all. If they had talked about rain at all, then I think the case would be closed that they had some clue as to the hydrological cycle, which wouldn't terribly surprise me, but they seemed to have little enough clue about so many other things that it also wouldn't surprise me if they thought that rivers literally flowed both to and from the sea.

This verse was written by King Solomon at about 900 B.C. At that time, Jewish people have settled in the area of Judea (not to the coastal area yet) for a couple hundreds of year. The only water source to them is the running creek on the mountain and the wells they dug in the valleys. To the opposite of what you said, they were probably more familiar with the water in the mountain than on the coastal area. During the drought time, they were actually looking for water in the mountain area (and the Jordan Valley) rather than go down to the coastal plain for easier water source.

Again, do not think ancient people are ignorant. They knew their living environment better than you know your backyard.

The point is that King Solomon probably did not have any idea about the hydrologic cycle. I wonder when did people start to actually suspect the existence of this cyclic process. I guess it was probably later than A.D.1000, or even A.D.500. It isn't easy. It takes the understanding on the origin of cloud and rain. Many key links in this cycle are invisible features.

The amazing part of this simple example is that King Solomon was able to say this "without" the understanding of hydrologic cycle.