Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nobody thinks Jesus is a sheep.Is it possible to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of, and including Adam and Eve being the first humans without requiring the entire bible to be literal and inerrant?
Why defend pseudoscience?First off, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the DI. Just defending them in this particular case. Secondly, there's a possibility we may have to cut this conversation short at some point. It happened in another thread. Wouldn't be your fault, but just to let you know. But until then I think it's a worthwhile topic.
The Wedge Document, which I referred to in #2, refers to influencing society. There's nothing illegal about influencing society. The humanists do the same thing. We know that there are humanist members in education, and their interest is in influencing society to remove traditional religion.
No, I am talking about biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and about others who revere the Bible but don't think it is under attack. It is possible, for instance, to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God without requiring it to be literal and inerrant. It is even possible to reject literal inerrancy without accepting the theory of evolution.
To defend a God who lives in a magical book and can't do anything that isn't written there. If you discredit the magic of the book then God has nowhere to live and nothing to do.Why defend pseudoscience?
Research has uncovered data that is directly contrary to the flood story.
What exactly could an IntelligentThey base this idea on
1. Most of the members of the DI are Christian. Even though the religious beliefs of any scientist are never a disqualification in principle, it's assumed they have an agenda to push/force Christianity in the classroom.
2. Some of the members have an interest in influencing society as a whole away from TOE's monopoly.
3. A word they noticed that was changed in a publication to be used in a public classroom. The word creationism was changed to intelligent design. It was assumed that creationism meant biblical creationism.
So their assumptions overruled any explanation given by the DI as to their intent. And it became circular, or a Catch-22. When the judge of the trial said ID might be true, but not science; to counter the problem of possibly avoiding truth since that's what science is about, they referred to violation of religious freedom and the Constitution.
No, biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and who then try to misrepresent it as an attack on God or the Christian faith should be called out about it.Let me get this straight.
Biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible should simply change their thinking and regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God, without requiring It to be literal and inerrant?
Id hope to hear from the horses mouth.To defend a God who lives in a magical book and can't do anything that isn't written there. If you discredit the magic of the book then God has nowhere to live and nothing to do.
When people claim that a global flood was impossible, they also claim that it can't ever happen. If anything, that actually supports the global flood narrative in Genesis. The problem is that, for instance, if there was enough water on the planet to create a worldwide flood, and it happened, that would contradict God's promise of never using a flood to wipe out life on Earth again.To the main points.
Research has uncovered data that is directly
contrary to the flood story. A very great deal of data.
There is zero supporting data.
Thats exactly what " disproof" is, in science or
the courtroom.
Your statement is not consistent with fact.
That tends to put your following claims and assumptions in a poor light.
A chosen interpretation of the bible that is as in conflict with reality as Pi=3.0!
OK, so I'll mark "not to scale" against the age of the Earth and move on.Here we go with that Pi=3.0 junk again.
Do you know what NTS stamped on a document stands for?
It stands for Not To Scale.
1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Just write NOT TO SCALE in the margin of your Bible and move on.
Of course, if you're dead set against the inerrancy of the Bible, then it's a different story.
I addressed that in #2.The Discovery Institute have made their intentions very clear, in "The Wedge Document" and in the writings of Rushdooney and Schaeffer.
Just write NOT TO SCALE in the margin of your Bible and move on.
No. But I think it is reprehensible to try to use pseudoscience as a cover for "influencing" schoolchildren towards Dominionism. It is reprehensible to try to introduce pseudoscience into the public schools for any reason.I addressed that in #2.
Do you think there's something wrong or illegal about influencing society?
Nobody thinks Jesus is a sheep.
No, biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and who then try to misrepresent it as an attack on God or the Christian faith should be called out about it.
Id hope to hear from the horses mouth.
Your point is valid. However, I'm 70 and at this point in my life I'm more interested in digging into the history of our bibles and, frankly, prayer and doing His will. I'm about done with this "phase" of my life (the physical phase) and there are just too many things to study. I'm more about warning young people where they are headed. I also see 2024 as measuring up to be one for the history books, like 1939, and 2025 to be like 1940-1945, only worse. So I enjoy talking about this subject and trying to get others (as well as myself) to question their beliefs and biases, but it's more centered around discussing with believers. especially YEC believers. The other more important topic is the fate of the lost. I'm a strong CI proponent (vs ECT). And also the dependence so many Christians have on works.Heres what i like in your post.
You recognize that " old earth" is real, and well
evidenced in many lines of research.
I most like the "not married to".
If I may, I'd like to suggest you spend some time
on historical geology. I could reccomend a most
readable book, written for lay people.
( my geology profv aid if the author, a John
McPhee, wrote the texts thered be a lot more
geologists)
Theres a couple places where your
Interpretations are a bit off, which i can
point out if you wish
OK, so I'll mark "not to scale" against the age of the Earth and move on.
You always seem to do badly when you jump in to respond to me in a thread where I was talking with someone else -- you more often seem to mistake what I'm saying, etc.Your conflated usage of the term 'flood' in the biblical context, with a pre-biotic water world, in order to highlight a supposedly overly broad statement, I also find, as being about as clear as mud. This is not the first time you've used flawed and confused analogies, which only end up appearing as an attempt to conceal an undistinguished tenet.
Scientific thinking seeks displays of the principles of an argument in the argument itself. Dismissals predicated by your use of 'of course ..' are insufficient, because the speaker's personal interpretations are irrelevant in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?