Did anyone witht the B.B.C. see Robert "I am the Walruss" Winston taking on some Creationist weirdo in the U.S. yesterday? Made for interesting viewing.
It went something like this, for those who missed it:
Weirdo: What about Genesis? What about Noah and the Great Flood?
Winston: I believe in reading the Great Flood allegorically. This in no way diminishes the message of the Bible. Evolutionary theory in no way suggests that the process of evolution was not begun by an omnipotent Creator.
Weirdo: You think I'm wrong, and can not be right. Prove that Creationism is wrong.
Winston: Actually, I think it's the other way around. And proving a negative such as that is a farce.
Weirdo: What tells us evolution is correct?
Winston: Blah blah fossil record, blah blah simian brain development, blah blah blah.
Weirdo: Well, I ain't heard no evidence, all I done heard is this so called expert disrespectin' the Bible (makes to thump Winston, who quickly flees the scene).
Any comments?
Originally posted by sjegAny comments?
Did anyone witht the B.B.C. see Robert "I am the Walruss" Winston taking on some Creationist weirdo in the U.S. yesterday? Made for interesting viewing.
It went something like this, for those who missed it:
Weirdo: What about Genesis? What about Noah and the Great Flood.
Winston: I believe in reading the Great Flood allegorically. This in no way dimi ...[text shortened]... disrespectin' the Bible (makes to thump Winston, who quickly flees the scene).
Any comments?
Your report is biased. 😛 Ergo, I am dubious of its accuracy.
Originally posted by sjegYou want to make a point of view look bad, set up a debate get the
Did anyone witht the B.B.C. see Robert "I am the Walruss" Winston taking on some Creationist weirdo in the U.S. yesterday? Made for interesting viewing.
It went something like this, for those who missed it:
Weirdo: What about Genesis? What about Noah and the Great Flood.
Winston: I believe in reading the Great Flood allegorically. This in no way dimi ...[text shortened]... disrespectin' the Bible (makes to thump Winston, who quickly flees the scene).
Any comments?
dumbest person you can find and debate someone who is skilled
at debate. Slam dunk, nothing to do with who is right or wrong in
the discussion.
Kelly
You are both correct!
For balance, this, with which I also agree, as walruss chops is a bit of a fraud, and is a rather condescending chap on the box.
"Thus far, this is not an objective documentary. It appears to be the preaching of one man’s philosophy (without allowing any challenge to his basic evolutionary assumptions). It will be fascinating for me to watch this Sunday evening as the creationists are afforded some opportunity to challenge his evolutionary view of religions (should the producers not engage in too much selective editing)."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1212bbcstory.asp
It was called "The Story of God", and starts on the presumption that God does not exist, and is rather poorly done. will be aired in the U.S. on discovery, apparently.
My point:
it made me laugh. Like this: ho ho ho. Very festive.
Originally posted by sjegThat type of thing is done all the time on the air waves, it is used
You are both correct!
For balance, this, with which I also agree, as walruss chops is a bit of a fraud, and is a rather condescending chap on the box.
"Thus far, this is not an objective documentary. It appears to be the preaching of one man’s philosophy (without allowing any challenge to his basic evolutionary assumptions). It will be fascinating for ...[text shortened]... . on discovery, apparently.
My point:
it made me laugh. Like this: ho ho ho. Very festive.
on TV more than radio. TV they find Billy Bob and set him up against
Joe Harvard and guess who wins and who looks stupid. That then gets
translated into the points that Billy Bob was in truth attempting to
make, look bad, and all that may feel the way Billy Bob did feel bad
too. It could have nothing to do with Joe Harvard being right or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by sjegThere are parts that should be read literally and parts that shouldn't
That's fair enough! Hooray!
EDIT: Wait a mo'. You don't mean that you read the Old Testament literally, do you?
be, but contents like in all writing should give you a clue as when it
should and shouldn't be done. Yes, I read the creation story as
something that occured, the way it was written.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd here I figured that was one of the parts not to be read literally.
There are parts that should be read literally and parts that shouldn't
be, but contents like in all writing should give you a clue as when it
should and shouldn't be done. Yes, I read the creation story as
something that occured, the way it was written.
Kelly
Originally posted by sjegNo worries on offence, trust me.
Ok- if those are your beliefs, I will not question them.
I was just a bit curious, as not many people in this part of the world share that approach to the Bible.
Anyway, I hope I didn't offend with the original post! Have fun.
sjeg
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe timelines, for instance? Do you believe that God, in fact, created everything in 144 hours? How can a being such as God have a concept of linear time? And why does God need to rest? Does he get tired like you and I?
Seems like a strait forward account to me, why would I according to
the text think is something other than an account of what happened
when?
Kelly
Originally posted by darvlayYes, I believe He created everything in 144 hours.
The timelines, for instance? Do you believe that God, in fact, created everything in 144 hours? How can a being such as God have a concept of linear time? And why does God need to rest? Does he get tired like you and I?
I do not believe He needed to rest because He gets tired like you
and I, but instead for a pattern of rest for us, because we need it
He did it. I believe God is more aware of the universe than we are
as far time, distance, reactions and so on. I believe God becoming
a man also gave Him the insight into our lives that allows Him to
Help us because He tasted what is like to be a man.
Kelly