Why creationists reject evolution

[Praxiteles]

Never said you had to accept, agree, or even take the opinion into account in your life ever again. Just respect their right to have that opinion instead of telling them to shut up.

One Love.

You won't get an argument from me that we should respect everyone's right to an opinion.

What this boils down to is whether we should respect the opinion itself, especially given that certain opinions can lead to behaviours that are (generally) held to be unacceptable.

 

[Praxiteles]

That is a great empirical example.

Ah! But neither of those examples are faith being rejected for its own sake! Both of them are faith being pushed aside to make way for political ideology. The revolutionaries recognised that their ideology could not co-exist with religious belief, so they repressed it.

That's not atheism for atheism's sake.

 

[Praxiteles]

I hope Praxiteles didn't leave: I was enjoying the debate.

Not leaving, but lunching.

 

[EvoDan]

...However that does not mean that Bush is not entitled to his opinion...

I agree as well, but Bush is running the government on those beliefs, and that, from a faith-based view or not, is morally repugnant.

 

[Praxiteles]

EvoDan, you may have missed this, because it was the last post on the previous page.

 

[EvoDan]

...any tool, if misused, can be destructive....

Yes. That's why we put some of them away for only the direst of emergencies. Think of the lesson we all learned at Hiroshima...

Really? How is the mafia cohesive? I would call that oppressive rather than cohesive.

I would call it cohesive AND oppressive: a group of people, with an ideology, making others conform. Certainly something to be fought and abolished.

Faith is here to stay...it is going to have to be kept under regulation.... impossible outside authoritarian structures...wouldn't want to be arguing for one of those!

Agreed.

 

[EvoDan]

EvoDan, you may have missed this, because it was the last post on the previous page.

Slow typist...

sorry...

 

[Erock83]

I agree as well, but Bush is running the government on those beliefs, and that, from a faith-based view or not, is morally repugnant.

Then we have a moral imperative to elect a leader in 2008 that will play the overturn game. Not saying that I like it but unless the American public would open their eyes and get as stark raving mad as I am and boot them all out that is the solution that we are left with.

One Love.

 

[EvoDan]

Then we have a moral imperative to elect a leader in 2008 that will play the overturn game. Not saying that I like it but unless the American public would open their eyes and get as stark raving mad as I am and boot them all out that is the solution that we are left with.

One Love.

See you at the polls.

 

[Praxiteles]

Yes. That's why we put some of them away for only the direst of emergencies. Think of the lesson we all learned at Hiroshima...

The point is that tools have a function, and most of the time are useful. This is true whether we're talking about faith, nuclear energy, fire, swords or whatever. To follow that analogy, very rarely is the use of a tool banned when its misuse is dangerous.

Let's look at motor vehicles, for example. So extremely dangerous and risky. We minimise the risk as much as possible with regulation (rules on design, use of airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts, speed limits) but we still have a horrific road toll. It's just that the utility of the tool far outweighs the potential damage from misuse.

I think the same is true of faith.

I would call it cohesive AND oppressive: a group of people, with an ideology, making others conform. Certainly something to be fought and abolished.

Cohesive perhaps for the ruling family - but not society at large. That's an important distinction.

 

[Praxiteles]

Don't vote. It only encourages the buggers.

 

[EvoDan]

The point is that tools have a function...
Let's look at motor vehicles...
I think the same is true of faith....

I agree. Let's start requiring "driving tests" for the practitioners of faith, and require the "vehicles" of their faith to submit to goverment regulation. I'm serious. We require proof of expertise and accountability for auto drivers to protect society, so we should require the same of fundamentalists.

...That's an important distinction.

With all due respect, I don't see that it is a distiction. Who's to say the Pope isn't christianity's "Capo di tutti cappo?"

 

[EvoDan]

The truth will make you flee. - Praxiteles

I flee...

See you tomorrow, gang.

 

[Praxiteles]

I agree. Let's start requiring "driving tests" for the practitioners of faith, and require the "vehicles" of their faith to submit to goverment regulation. I'm serious. We require proof of expertise and accountability for auto drivers to protect society, so we should require the same of fundamentalists.

Touchy subject, that.

To a certain degree it has been - at least in the West. Churches have been self regulating to a lesser or greater degree, with a lesser or greater degree of success.

It's not really something I'd want to get into.

 

[Praxiteles]

[/font][/b][/i][/size]

I flee...

See you tomorrow, gang.

Toodles.

 

[RightWingGirl]

(emphasis mine)
Of course the seal is a metaphor...
In YOUR interpretation of the verse.

Which, of course, brings us back to some of the core issues brought up on this thread. You interpret the bible to fit your worldview, flat-earthers interpret the bible to fit their worldview, Creationists interpret the bible to fit their worldview and TE's likewise interpret the bible to fit their worldview.[Q

You say that I interpret the Bible to fit my worldview. In certain respects, that is correct. But what else do you suggest? I have a bias, as does everyone.
This is essentially what is happening in the Creation/Evolution debate. We both have the same evidence, but we interpret it different ways.
Does the fact that something can be interpreted a different way make the first way incorrect?

Likewise, many early Christian writers (such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Boniface, and Pope Zacharias) spoke of a flat earth and stated that the teaching of a round earth was contrary to scripture. As a matter of fact, Zacharias stated that if it were found that Vergilius were holding to the "doctrine" of a round earth, then Vergilius would be "expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity".

If you want to know more about the subject, see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

 

[Nightson]

Does the fact that something can be interpreted a different way make the first way incorrect?

No. It would be the mountains of physical evidence that render it incorrect. Assuming of course that you wish the Bible to be inerrant. If you don't well then YEC could definately be the correct interpetation.

 

[RightWingGirl]

The fact that you, and other creationists here, have pointed out parts of the bible that must be interpreted and not taken literally is basis for genesis to be interpreted.

.

If I remember correctly the only verse that was not literal, (that you have mentioned) is Job 38:14




It is changed like clay under the seal,




where it is clearly implied that it is a metaphor.

 

[TheInstant]

If I remember correctly the only verse that was not literal, (that you have mentioned) is Job 38:14




It is changed like clay under the seal,




where it is clearly implied that it is a metaphor.

You mean where it's clearly implied that it's a simile, right?

 

[jckstraw72]

If the Bible claimed to be a literal science book, then this thread might have a purpose.