Christians, please help me understand....

Originally posted by orfeo
Well, being open to interpretation is hardly a unique quality of the Bible.

You should see how people try to interpret Tori Amos songs.

Good point. We became too intelligent we are dumb. lol.

You can take the Bible and use it in many different ways. You see the persons walk, in the way they use the Bible. I think Jesus brought the message of love above all things, but in an environment with little love it kind of loses it'a true meaning.

Originally posted by telerion
When it comes to the Discovery Institute one should certainly check their sources. Simply searching their site for "peer-reviewed" and copying and pasting their responses to the question is unfortunately not satisfactory (mainly because DI is dishonest).

I'm just now beginning my review, but I've already discovered simply by checking amazon.com that [i] up to this point so I'll put it in.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

[/i]Fair enough. Although, I wouldn't say talkorigins is the shining example of unbiased objectivity either. The point of contention here was that there was no peer-review articles published, which even talkorigins admits to not be the case.

Perhaps you'd care to comment about Sternberg's ostracising by the Smithsonian after allowing the publication of Meyer's ID article*?

* http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=55470&page=3

Edit: One of the objections given in talkorigins is that some of the reviewing was done by scientists sympathetic to the ID cause... that's like saying a scientific article on evolution is biased as it was reviewed by evolutionary biologists.

Originally posted by rwingett
Does anything in the bible have any definite meaning, or is it ALL open to interpretation?

All language requires interpretation. Why should that surprise you?

Originally posted by Halitose
[/i]Fair enough. Although, I wouldn't say talkorigins is the shining example of unbiased objectivity either. The point of contention here was that there was no peer-review articles published, which even talkorigins admits to not be the case.

Perhaps you'd care to comment about Sternberg's ostracising by the Smithsonian after allowing the publicat ...[text shortened]... a scientific article on evolution is biased as it was reviewed by evolutionary biologists.

There's a difference. I did my own research and in so doing stumbled upon talkorigins link. Much of the information there was consistent with what I had found in outside sources (including that half of your "journals" were actually popular press books). Given this, I thought that it was an important and useful source.

The reviewers point is not really the same. ID, no matter how much you favor it, is still at best a radical idea in biology. More precisely it is both crackpot and uninformative. These sorts of ideas are not unique to biology. In economics there are all sorts of heterodox views that, like ID, spring not from science, but rather solely from an individual's taste or social philosophy. Like ID, these ideas also struggle to find a home in the significant journals. In a few cases however they have found a sympathetic editor (or they start their own journal) who will publish their cripe or they sneak themselves into obscure and irrelevant conferences (like Meyer's Proceedings paper).

You are correct that ID has been published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, it has been published in fewer than five. The fact of the matter is that it has not withstood the scrutiny of the informed and only enjoys a following among a handful of biologists and a mass of layman xians. The DI is infamous for making a PR mountain out of an academic molehill. Those who are not familiar with the academia, it's easy to find their boasting convincing. After all, it is an integral part of their front to persuade the general public that they're locked in a significant, important scientific controversy. In reality, it is a sham and one step in a much larger wedge strategy to restore xian theology not only to biology but also to physics, literature, and even economics. I feel pity for you that your religious affiliation causes you to feel the need to side with these intellectual crooks.

As for Sternberg, why should I comment on him? He's a nobody. Alas, I will give you my two cents. He's a whiner who crookedly (surprise, surprise) bent the rules as an associate editor and sidestepped the referee process in order to sneak a literature review into the last issue of his obscure journal simply so that DI could claim to have one publication. As an intellectual, this makes him a fraud. He deserves whatever he gets (if he has really received any discipline at all), and I'm sure he'll relish every squawk and whine that he can make out of the situation. After all, it's all about PR, not research.

Before signing off, let me repeat my admonishment to you. Think a bit more critically before C&Ping the first thing that comes up in your biased ocular filter.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]First - Basically, what has been explain is this. The Bible was written by many different people and many different times for many different people in many different circumstances and has been translated and translated and translated again.
Is that correct?

Yes...but I think you are misleading when you say, it has been "translated and translated ...[text shortened]... panish crown was "Christian", I would hesitate to say that they represented Christianity.[/b]

1) I mean to insinuate nothing. I was asking a straight forward question.

2) You specifically refer to the SPANISH Inquisition. I am talking about all Inquisitions that existed across most of Europe for several hundred years, not just the short lived and very infamous Spanish Inquisition. There were several Popes that supported the Inquisitions (not specifically the Spanish one) throughout history and Europe.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
All language requires interpretation. Why should that surprise you?

Your capacity for inventing the most far fetched interpretations hardly comes as a surprise anymore. Nor is your ability to utter them with a straight face. I think 'tiresome' might be closer to the mark.

Originally posted by telerion
There's a difference. I did my own research and in so doing stumbled upon talkorigins link. Much of the information there was consistent with what I had found in outside sources (including that half of your "journals" were actually popular press books). Given this, I thought that it was an important and useful source.

The reviewers point is not real ...[text shortened]... critically before C&Ping the first thing that comes up in your biased ocular filter.

Wow... I find it discouraging, yet quite telling, to have to start off this discussion on the back foot. So not only are these inbred rednecks from DI bible-punching, flat-earth believing fools, they're also fraudulent charlatans? Of course you have mounds of irrefutable evidence to prove it.

Do you with all honesty believe that when a rabid atheist (e.g Dawkins) sits opposite a scientist with religious convictions that there is only one prejudiced, closed-minded and "stupid fool" in the room (one guess as to who)?

Do you seriously maintain that if a scientist is religious they would feverishly cook the evidence and results to justify their presuppositions while a similarly irreligious scholar would maintain their intellectual honesty to follow the evidence wherever it leads?

And you claim that it’s the religious folk that are prejudiced?

As for Sternberg, why should I comment on him? He's a nobody.

That's where we differ significanly... nobody's a nobody. Better button up that collar, your true colours are showing -- and they're not objective.

He's a whiner who crookedly (surprise, surprise) bent the rules as an associate editor and sidestepped the referee process...

Really? Which rules? Show me "da prooph".

The rest, as they say, is water under the ol' bridge.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
1) I mean to insinuate nothing. I was asking a straight forward question.

2) You specifically refer to the SPANISH Inquisition. I am talking about all Inquisitions that existed across most of Europe for several hundred years, not just the short lived and very infamous Spanish Inquisition. There were several Popes that supported the Inquisitions (not specifically the Spanish one) throughout history and Europe.

Well, you specifically mentioned the Spanish inquisition. But I suspect that the role of religion in other inquisitions was similarly exaggerated.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, you specifically mentioned the Spanish inquisition. But I suspect that the role of religion in other inquisitions was similarly exaggerated.

You would be sadly mistaken if you are referring to the Inquistions in Europe. And the fact that the Spanish Inquistion was a joint venture of the RCC and the Spanish crown hardly shows that the "role of religion" in it was "exaggerated"; what do you think the purpose of an Inquistion is?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, you specifically mentioned the Spanish inquisition. But I suspect that the role of religion in other inquisitions was similarly exaggerated.

Point 1) So because I said "So do the deaths of thousands and thousands of people at the hands of the Inquisition (including the Spanish Inquisition) and the deaths..." and just happened to mention the Spanish Inquisition with the word INCLUDING, I was specifically refering to only it?

Did you fail English and grammar classes in school?

Pint 2) As to exaggeration, there are specifically listed death tolls at the hands of many of the Inquistitions. Specific names and "crimes against the church" are listed for each person killed. Are you saying that they made up peoples names and "crimes"? Are you saying that it is more likely that they ADDED people rather than forgot to add or left off people from those lists?

Wow... I find it discouraging, yet quite telling, to have to start off this discussion on the back foot. So not only are these inbred rednecks from DI bible-punching, flat-earth believing fools, they're also fraudulent charlatans? Of course you have mounds of irrefutable evidence to prove it.

Hal, your acting like a child. Quit putting words into my mouth.

The DI guys are not what you describe at all. They are well-educated, old earth charlatans. Evidence has never been effective with you and I doubt it will be now. Why not go check some of the allegations of misconduct that have been amassed against them? Internet infidels has kept a lengthy record. A biased source naturally, but still good for pointing out DI's failures (cuz you aren't gonna here it from them). RBH is an academic biologist and very well-read in the DI literature (trust me he's read all their material). There's no reason for me to waste my holiday amassing it all for you, when I don't think you really give two hoots.

Do you with all honesty believe that when a rabid atheist (e.g Dawkins) sits opposite a scientist with religious convictions that there is only one prejudiced, closed-minded and "stupid fool" in the room (one guess as to who)?

Completely irrelevent. Don't elevate these jokers to the class of "scientists with religious convictions." Quit trying to pick a fight and use your brain. There are many credible scientists who are also religious. Ken Miller is a perfect example of one. Yet he and the vast majority of other scientists who are also theists do real work. My biology professor in undergrad was a Mormon. He was also a great guy, apparently a fine scholar, and a exciting teacher of evolutionary biology.

Do you seriously maintain that if a scientist is religious they would feverishly cook the evidence and results to justify their presuppositions while a similarly irreligious scholar would maintain their intellectual honesty to follow the evidence wherever it leads?

Nope. And I've never said as much. I've said this about the people working for the DI. I've also claimed that there are a few people in my field that do the same and get the same response as the DI cons get.

And you claim that it’s the religious folk that are prejudiced?

No. No. No. Can we stop this infantile game? Quit making this a theist/atheist issue. It's about the Discovery Institute doing PR and scientists (believers and non-believers alike) doing science. I've read some of Behe's and Dembski's articles. I'm especially fascinated by Dembski's because they are mathematical and so I can understand them. I can say with no reservation that his work is a sham. This is why he gets laughed out of math departments (of course he adds to his CV that he presented there) and is relegated to pawning his tripe off on churches.

That's where we differ significanly... nobody's a nobody.

Ok, I'm sure he is a hell of a joker and makes a mean red curry, but in his field he is a nobody. You're bringing him up was a red herring and I should have just ignored it.

Really? Which rules? Show me "da prooph".

You are obviously not an academic. Do you have any clue how the process of publishing peer-reviewed papers works? Tell you what. Go google it. Don't worry. I'll wait for you.

Originally posted by amannion
That's pretty disingenuous and you know it.
ID is a position put forward by Creationists - all of whom are Christian - ergo ID is a Christian creation.
But even if you disassociate the Christianity, to claim it as a valid biological position is idiotic.

ID fails even the simplest requirement of a scientific model/theory, which is to have your work peer ...[text shortened]... ecause someoen says it is - full stop.
That's not science and don't claim otherwise.

Ability to get into a "Scientific Journal" is not a scientific qualification. To be reviewed by peers does not make an idea "scientific". Galileo was not able to get "peer reviews" in Rome due to the influence of the Collegio Romano; but that did not make his ideas about a heliocencric universe unscientific, as proven by Coppenicus several years earlier. To qualify something as "scientific" because the "scientific journals" agree is almost as ludacrous as saying something is "nonscientific" because "scientific Journals" refuse to review something. 🙂
According to the Sientific Process to have an idea is Hypothesis, to verify the Hypothesis through experimentation is to have a theory. There is no experiment that can verify or falsify evolution or inteligent design, nor does either one make any verifiable or falsifiable predictions; therefore neither one is "scientific" and nither one belongs in a science classroom. 🙂

As to the association of Christians with intelligent design: this is simple, intelligent design implies that there is an Intelligent Designer. In order to design the universe One has to have existed before the universe; intelligent design is therefore creationist in perspective; the Bible teaches that God (Elohim) created the universe; ergo - cristians promote intelligent design. 🙂

Love in Christ
Jeremy Burnett

🙂 😀 😉 😛 😕 😠 😳 🙁 :'( 😞 😏 😵 😲 🙄 😴

Originally posted by preachingforjesus
Ability to get into a "Scientific Journal" is not a scientific qualification. To be reviewed by peers does not make an idea "scientific". Galileo was not able to get "peer reviews" in Rome due to the influence of the Collegio Romano; but that did not make his ideas about a heliocencric universe unscientific, as proven by Coppenicus several years ...[text shortened]... ove in Christ
Jeremy Burnett

🙂 😀 😉 😛 😕 😠 😳 🙁 :'( 😞 😏 😵 😲 🙄 😴

What a load of rubbish. Evolution is perfectly testable, perfectly falsifiable. A single bunny rabbit found in the pre-cambrian would do it. Likewise, we can impose conditions on, for example, bacteria and watch the evolution (by differential survival) of antibiotic resistance.

Please go away, switch your brain on, and come back.

Originally posted by jaywill
Intelligent Design Theory does not require any particular theological foundation as far as the science of it goes.

Opponents of Intelligent Design Theory are eager to link it to Christianity. But as far as the science of it goes, no particular faith or religion is indorced by it. And that is what ID is - a science theory.

Someone on Evolution Ver ...[text shortened]... elligent Design is valid as an approach to biology regardless of the age of life on earth.

BS, as usual from you.

ID is not a scientific theory. Why not go look the word "theory" up? There is not one single shred of evidence for ID. It is not parsimonious, testable, and makes the a priori assumption that complexity exists, in order to try and explain complexity.

ID is not science, and has no redeeming features at all.

Originally posted by preachingforjesus
Ability to get into a "Scientific Journal" is not a scientific qualification. To be reviewed by peers does not make an idea "scientific". Galileo was not able to get "peer reviews" in Rome due to the influence of the Collegio Romano; but that did not make his ideas about a heliocencric universe unscientific, as proven by Coppenicus several years ...[text shortened]... ove in Christ
Jeremy Burnett

🙂 😀 😉 😛 😕 😠 😳 🙁 :'( 😞 😏 😵 😲 🙄 😴

Where did the water come from?