Would someone with a college education explain this, please?

[AV1611VET]

What is there to explain? Thought you were a literalist, so just read every word as it stands, there is no further explanation or interpretation necessary or even possible ...

I am a literalist.

I'm just not one of them edjacatid literalists.

You know -- the kind that says a large universe has to be an old universe.

 

[Jazer]

That's why I'm fond of saying that a 5-year-old should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

No problem when my son was 5 he could tell you abortion is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

No problem when my son was 5 he could tell you abortion is wrong.

 

[hasone]

Are you? you said it too.

Right -- either way, eh?

If I go along with the crowd, I'm 'brainwashed'; and if I think for myself, I'm 'backwater'.

There is more than two options, (this being an example of the "fallacy of the excluded middle"), and I am interested to see if you can find some.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is more than two options, (this being an example of the "fallacy of the excluded middle"), and I am interested to see if you can find some.

Don't tell me; tell your cohorts, who are very good at placing us in catch-22 situations.

This is one of the reasons I don't think you guys are here to truly learn.

Imagine if I was calling a bunch of guys who fight, 'bullies'; then when one comes along that doesn't fight, I call him a 'sissy'.

 

[hasone]

Don't tell me; tell your cohorts, who are very good at placing us in catch-22 situations.

This is one of the reasons I don't think you guys are here to truly learn.

Imagine if I was calling a bunch of guys who fight, 'bullies'; then when one comes along that doesn't fight, I call him a 'sissy'.

If something's incorrect, but someone (or multiple others) do it, that makes it okay for you to do it? That's how I'm reading your post. Am I understanding you right?

 

[AV1611VET]

If something's incorrect, but someone (or multiple others) do it, that makes it okay for you to do it? That's how I'm reading your post. Am I understanding you right?

I'm not going to belabor this point to a newbie; but by way of example, since I espouse embedded-age creation, I'm a backwater Christian -- anything else, and I'm either brainwashed or a freak in a freak show.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Exodus is not generally considered to be an historical narrative, but rather propaganda encouraging the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. This mythical passage describes the hero of the Israelites, Moses, as he musters the strength and courage to hold up his hands, thereby procuring the favor of their god. In so doing, they were able to extirpate their rival ethnic group. It could be argued that this narrative demonstrates the capricious nature of Moses' god, as the genocide of an ethnic group depends on the physical conditioning of one man.

You claim to be an atheist (no such thing)...first off before I answer your post... could you prove that there is no God.

 

[Nostromo]

That's why I'm fond of saying that a 5-year-old should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

It's nice to know that you have the reasoning ability of an infant, but I think you should probably be aiming for at least the teens by your age.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You claim to be an atheist (no such thing)...first off before I answer your post... could you prove that there is no God.

Wow, heck of an equivocation fallacy there. Methinks he, like virtually every other self-professed atheist, defines 'atheism' as 'the absence of belief in, and thus the lack of affirmation of the existence of, any deity'. That is, when he says "I am an atheist", he isn't saying "I know that there is no God".

And even if you define that position as 'agnosticism' (which flies in the face of all common sense), that still doesn't mean you were right to presume that, by "I am an atheist", he was using your definition of the word.

 

[hasone]

I'm not going to belabor this point to a newbie; but by way of example, since I espouse embedded-age creation, I'm a backwater Christian -- anything else, and I'm either brainwashed or a freak in a freak show.

Ah, I see. My status as a 'newbie' is important somehow, though you haven't really explained how.

Besides that, I see a false dichotomy, also known as "the fallacy of the excluded middle". You present a series of options and assert that your list is complete.

You also don't attribute the statements to any person or group more specific than 'my cohorts', which could be quite a few things, but from context seems to be people who accept science and post on this board. Thus you make sweeping statements about a group of people you don't identify clearly and don't know that well, which are thus difficult to prove, and then provide no evidence for them.

You found "in a freak show" as a third option to "brainwashed" and "backwater", but there are still more options, and some of them don't have connotations you'd find negative. I'm still interested to see if you can find them.

Finally, you will find, if you look through my post history, that I have in fact called out "evolutionists", atheists, and other people I agree with for weak and/or fallacious thinking. I don't find it quite as often there as with creationists, but it is still common. (you'll also find some moments of weakness where I don't live up to my own standards, but I'll own up to that. I've been better as time goes on. )

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

You claim to be an atheist (no such thing)...first off before I answer your post... could you prove that there is no God.

Nope.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Do you have evidence to back up your opinion? I have never seen a contradiction.

Let's start with this.

"Archaeology
The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[21] For this reason, most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22][23] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[24]"

 

[Skavau]

That's why I'm fond of saying that a 5-year-old should be able to look a scientist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

They can do that if they want, but exactly what knowledge do you suppose a 5 year old has regarding evolution to even know that their statement is true?

 

[LOCO]

Exodus 17:11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

Hello

The Bible is a book of faith. It is appropriate to look at it from a historical critical point of view, but that analysis is inherently one that avoids and excludes considerations of faith. It is of limited value, because we (Christians) are interested in the total meaning of Sacred Scripture.

Suppose that the events of Exodus are absolutely true in every detail stated in the Bible, the Bible would still be a very sketchy account, by our modern standards.

This is one verse out of an event the 40 year journey and specifically the war between the Israelites and the Amalekites. You would need to read the entire chapter to get the correct context.

In Exodus 4:17 Yahweh to Moses: Take this staff in your hand; with this you will perform the signs.

In Exodus 17 verse 9 Moses tells Joshua to pick some men to go out and engage the Amalekites on the hilltop with the staff of God in my hand.'

This is the same staff of God that he raised in the air to part the waves for their escape from Egypt.

The people were continuously complaining of hunger and thirst after all they had spent the last 39 years wandering the widlerness and they blamed Moses. Earlier in the chapter Moses who is concerned about the lack of water is told by God that he will make water come from a Rock at Horeb (known as Mt Sinai).

God was on the rock and Moses was instructed to strike the rock upon which God stood. God was struck to produce the waters of life for the people. When the people arrived at Mt. Sinai the water was there waiting for them.

The miracle of "water from the rock" was repeated near the end of their journey forty year at Kadesh in Numbers 20:1-11.

At Kadesh the people banded together against Moses and blamed him for their sufferings, complaining again the Moses had purposely brought them out into the desert to die of thirst. Moses and Aaron appealed to God and Yahweh instructed Moses: Take the branch and call the community together, you and your brother Aaron. Then, in full view of them order this rock to release its water. You will release water from the rock for them and provide drink for the community and their livestock (Num 20:8-11).



There are links in the water miracles of Moses to the water miracles of Christ e.g. changing water into wine and walking on water.

The Fathers of the Church wrote that the rock that was struck to bring forth life-giving waters was an allegory of the Passion of Christ and His work of redemption: Then the Lord said to Moses, "Take the staff and strike the rock, that it may produce water for the people." Behold, there is a rock, and it contains water. However, unless this rock is struck, it does not have any water at all.

Then when it has been struck, it produces fountains and rivers, as we read in the Gospel: "He who believes in me, from within him there shall flow rovers of living water." When Christ was struck on the cross, he brought forth the fountains of the New Testament. Therefore it was necessary for him to be pierced. If he had not been struck, so that water and blood flowed from his side, the whole world would have perished through suffering thirst for the word of God (St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 103.3, quoting Jn 7:38)

Blessings

 

[Jazer]

Let's start with this.

"Archaeology
The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[21]

Sorry that is not archaeology, that is a theory called Revisionism by Revisionists. It has nothing to do with archaeology. It's just a misguided opinion with no substance or evidence to back it up. Sort of an atheistic version of wishful thinking.

 

[Jazer]

Moses who is concerned about the lack of water is told by God that he will make water come from a Rock at Horeb (known as Mt Sinai).

The Rock at Horeb is still there.

 

[Jazer]

They can do that if they want, but exactly what knowledge do you suppose a 5 year old has regarding evolution to even know that their statement is true?

Perhaps it has to do with their innocence and purity.
Jesus said that we have to become as a little child.

And said, Truly I say to you,
Except you be converted, and become as little children,
you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mat 18 3

 

[roach]

Sorry that is not archaeology, that is a theory called Revisionism by Revisionists. It has nothing to do with archaeology. It's just a misguided opinion with no substance or evidence to back it up. Sort of an atheistic version of wishful thinking.

This is not crazy, it's uber-crazy.

Where, even, to begin...?

 

[Skavau]

Perhaps it has to do with their innocence and purity.

That would reflect on their ignorance and demonstrate what they don't know, and not what they do know. They would question it on intuition (which does not always lead to the correct answers) or ignorance or faith. If you think the steadfast stubbornness of a five year old is worth celebrating or pointing out, then by all means but it only demonstrates anti-intellectual tendencies and where I being more cynical here a thinly veiled ploy of emotional manipulation on yours and AV's part.

Jesus said that we have to become as a little child.

Such as request would not be virtuous. I don't want to be a little child or think as one.