OK - OK I posted a very unfair post.
I just wanted to post something that really rattled everyones cage
I seem to have succeded all to well.
Besides I am providing some of you with great free entertainment by showing your skills at slamming knuckleheads. So as a way of amends you get one free jab at me as long as the insult is done with flair and style.
Proteus_MST
I agree with you and Boris.I am not ready to incorporate science to quickly however.It has been wrong almost as much as religion.
It is usually a problem with translation from ancient to modern language. This may sound like a bogus argument unless you have invested the years in study it takes to make an educated opinion on this paticular subject.
Let me give you an example of a recent translation study of mine.
Authorized Version
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."
Aramaic
All types of tangled behavior, the missing and falling, the rips and tears -- all the ways you cut yourself off, break your connection, or disrupt the pattern -- can and will be mended. Sooner or later, you will be freed from error, your mistakes embraced with emptiness, your arrhythmic action returned to the original beat. But your state cannot be mended or repaired, when you cut yourself off from the Source of all rhythm -- the inhaling, the exhaling of all air, wind, and atmosphere, seen and unseen -- the Holy Breath.
So you see language is an extreem barrier. These writers were not the ignorant nomads of the desert that they have been painted to be, just mistranslated and misunderstood.
When I say I have been in school forever. Does that mean literally I have been in an infinite experience of school? I just can`t seem to graduate
This is what is meant buy " the whole world was covered buy a flood".
It was an expression that the fundies choose to make an issue out of. They choose to make the word "world" the literal earth.
BTW just about every ancient Civilization has a record of the Great Flood that covered the whole Earth. Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian etc.
They died - that in no way controverts the scriptural account. Just perceived and interjected concepts into the scripture.
That is not the only conclusion you can come to. For example the Big Bang - in no way controverts the scriptural account of the universe if both are contemplated with an open mind.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, not exclusive of each other. After all the scripture has contributed to the betterment of mankind and so has science.
The hardcore will say that religion has caused wars and all that.
And science caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki so it is a more badder evil - worse even then Thor and Mars.
Spiffor
I only wish that were true, I was warned for presenting an argument in defense of scripture as viable history. The critics were allowed all of their last parting statements and I was not.
I do not want to provide a link for obvious reasons but I am being as objective as I can.
Immortal Wombat
I believe in evolution of the species to a degree, It just does not answer any questions about your or my existence. So debating with classic creationists is a moot point.
I also believe that the scripture contains great wisdom that is poo poo`d because it has not been understood, especially buy fundamentalist Christians. I believe there were men who had a handle on self- existence that wrote some of the books of scripture.
Last Conformist
You are right I was wrong and I apologize - can this sin be forgiven?
GePap
Faith defines a religion not its ceremonies.
Well how do I read your post and respond then?
Well said. and this is true also with Darwinism.
Science is subjective reasoning (hypothesis ie:faith) until it has been proven wrong.
Boris Godunov
I agree as far as classic creationism goes. Classic Christianity is probably the largest cause of Atheism today. They argue myth and from a lack of understanding, that in no way controverts creationism properly understood.
That is just not true. For the most part I agree with you, I would just like to add that both try to downplay and denegrate each other. In my original post I was trying (albeit not very well) to point this out.
Where did I say all this? Talk about debating yourself(strawman)
For the most part I agree but I think it is unfair to exclude Evolutionists. They are almost as guilty. They assert without proper facts and study that there is no God. Atheism as well as classic creationism asserts facts that are not proven at all.
That is just not true. Have you been keeping up with the latest quantum physics models?
A hypothesis is faith. And where faith is concerned why don`t Atheistic Evolutionists try including previous conclusions by experts in faith like Gautama, Lao Tzu, and Jesus and try a few experiments.
Chemical Ollie
Cool - wanting new theories is the wisdom of learning. Creation is taking place this very second and the next second a brand new creation exists. The only thing that remains constant is self-existence and awareness.
The only constant in the entire universe is change so carry that thought to its logical conclusion.
quantum
I just wanted to post something that really rattled everyones cage
I seem to have succeded all to well.
Besides I am providing some of you with great free entertainment by showing your skills at slamming knuckleheads. So as a way of amends you get one free jab at me as long as the insult is done with flair and style.
Proteus_MST
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Quite true. If only Creationists would listen to the wisdom of Aquinas, who admonished Christians not to challenge science with their religious beliefs, but rather to incorporate science into those beliefs. And just making up a term like ID and claiming it's scientific--which it isn't--doesn't cut it.
Quite true. If only Creationists would listen to the wisdom of Aquinas, who admonished Christians not to challenge science with their religious beliefs, but rather to incorporate science into those beliefs. And just making up a term like ID and claiming it's scientific--which it isn't--doesn't cut it.
The problem isn´t with people believing in god,
but with people believing that everything written within the bible is literally true
but with people believing that everything written within the bible is literally true
Let me give you an example of a recent translation study of mine.
Authorized Version
"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."
Aramaic
All types of tangled behavior, the missing and falling, the rips and tears -- all the ways you cut yourself off, break your connection, or disrupt the pattern -- can and will be mended. Sooner or later, you will be freed from error, your mistakes embraced with emptiness, your arrhythmic action returned to the original beat. But your state cannot be mended or repaired, when you cut yourself off from the Source of all rhythm -- the inhaling, the exhaling of all air, wind, and atmosphere, seen and unseen -- the Holy Breath.
So you see language is an extreem barrier. These writers were not the ignorant nomads of the desert that they have been painted to be, just mistranslated and misunderstood.
When I say I have been in school forever. Does that mean literally I have been in an infinite experience of school? I just can`t seem to graduate
This is what is meant buy " the whole world was covered buy a flood".
It was an expression that the fundies choose to make an issue out of. They choose to make the word "world" the literal earth.
BTW just about every ancient Civilization has a record of the Great Flood that covered the whole Earth. Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian etc.
What happened to the Dinosaurs?
so that the only conclusions can be, that you can only believe in the literal truth of the bible, if you abandon most of the modern natural sciences.
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle, not exclusive of each other. After all the scripture has contributed to the betterment of mankind and so has science.
The hardcore will say that religion has caused wars and all that.
And science caused Hiroshima and Nagasaki so it is a more badder evil - worse even then Thor and Mars.
Spiffor
Apolyton isn't like that: you are free to voice your opinion, and you are free to be exposed to the criticisms of others.
I do not want to provide a link for obvious reasons but I am being as objective as I can.
Immortal Wombat
you use the slightest amount of intelligence which the blind forces of natural selection gave you, and understand evolutionary theory in its entirety before you attempt to pick holes in it with no scientifically rigorous counter-hypothesis.
I also believe that the scripture contains great wisdom that is poo poo`d because it has not been understood, especially buy fundamentalist Christians. I believe there were men who had a handle on self- existence that wrote some of the books of scripture.
Last Conformist
The total amount of responses to creationists posted on this forum alone must run into the hundreds of pages.
GePap
Its not a religion, as there are no rites nor acts to be performed with any regularity
If you give us non-literary evidence for creationist claims
How do you argue faith? Faith is by definition beyond arguement
But at its very heart science is and can't be a faith- its the opposite of faith, it is seeking understanding through experimentation and complete skepticism unless adequate proof is given
Boris Godunov
The entire point is that neither Creationism nor ID are "cogent, well though out" lines of reasoning.
I see no such zeal on the part of evolutionary biologists to demonize Creationists.
I find the notion of a conspiratorial cabal of scientists seeking to exclude some sort of "cogent" Creationist scientific theory out of some atheistic crusade pretty amusing.
The false dichotomy that one is either a Creationist or an Atheist Evilutionist is the product of Creationists,not scientists.
If there were any scientific merit to Creationism, scientists would be beating a path to it. But they aren't, and it's not out of an exclusionary snobbery, it's because, simply put, there is no scientific validity to Creationism.
Second, how else would you expect "science" to proceed except under the assumption that only "scientific" hypotheses should be considered "science?" Should scientists be investigating unicorns and elves and fairies?
Chemical Ollie
beingofone, feel free to propose an alternative theory and back it up with observations
The only constant in the entire universe is change so carry that thought to its logical conclusion.
quantum
Comment