Originally posted by C HessThere are ways some do that, but it does not seem reasonable to me and other young earth creationists.
If you don't have to take it literally, why insist that evolution is not real? Surely there's a
perfectly reasonable way to square evolution with a non-literal interpretation of the bible?
Originally posted by RBHILLThanks for this timely thread, RB.
1. Sending his one and only begotten son to sacrifice his life for us to spend an eternity with him.
2. Grateful for the ark of Noah because without that not everyone alive today would be here because we are all sons of his Noah's three sons.
3. And I'm grateful for the ability to use my arms and legs.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou do realise that my rail on genesis was out of thinking RJHinds take that book literally;
You'll have to do better than this, kid.
a book not just "technically incomplete", but scientifically speaking flat out wrong. Now,
he's telling me he doesn't necessarily take it literally, in which case it makes no sense why
he would be so anti-scientific. I feel like I took the wrong turn somewhere and ended up in
the asylum for the worst kind of insane.
I'm not used to having my IQ drop as the result of a single conversation, so you'll have to
excuse my frustration as I climb back up.
1 edit
THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE THAT PICK AND
CHOOSE WHAT IS LITERAL AND WHAT IS
METAPHORICAL IS THAT THEY CANNOT
EXPLAIN THEIR DECISION - IT WOULD BE
GRAET IF THE ALLEGORICAL BITS WERE
IN RED INK OR SOMETHING BUT THEY ARE
NOT - WE ARE LEFT WITH THE OPTION OF
LEAVING THE TRUE MEANING OF THE
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE TO INTELLECTUAL
GIANTS LIKE rjhinds
Originally posted by C HessI think you'd do better working on your own beliefs instead of railing against the beliefs of others: everyone is at the stage they're at for sundry reasons.
You do realise that my rail on genesis was out of thinking RJHinds take that book literally;
a book not just "technically incomplete", but scientifically speaking flat out wrong. Now,
he's telling me he doesn't necessarily take it literally, in which case it makes no sense why
he would be so anti-scientific. I feel like I took the wrong turn somewhere a ...[text shortened]... e result of a single conversation, so you'll have to
excuse my frustration as I climb back up.
For instance, I could lampoon your assertion of Genesis' being "scientifically flat out wrong," but what good would it do to point out the obvious?
Would you abandon your belief that we have absolute scientific certainty regarding the beginning of life on the planet?
Not likely.
I, for one, wholeheartedly believe the account of Genesis--- in its entirety--- and fully expect "science" to eventually catch up with what was written thousands of years ago... just as science and understanding have caught up with other assertions found in the Bible years afterwards.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease do. I for one enjoy having my certainties challenged. It's how I grow intellectually.
For instance, I could lampoon your assertion of Genesis' being "scientifically flat out wrong," but what good would it do to point out the obvious?
So, don't be shy, but show me how genesis is supported scientifically. If you can do that, I'll
be the first to admit I'm wrong, and apologise if it upset you too much, as I've had to do
many times in the past.
Originally posted by C HessApparently it's difficult for you to have real conversations with thoughtful adults; I'll keep this in the forefront of my thinking.
Please do. I for one enjoy having my certainties challenged. It's how I grow intellectually.
So, don't be shy, but show me how genesis is supported scientifically. If you can do that, I'll
be the first to admit I'm wrong, and apologise if it upset you too much, as I've had to do
many times in the past.
Your statement here misrepresents my claim.
To clarify, go back and read it again.
Where you are wrong, however, is to claim there is some scientifically acceptable and proven account for the beginning of life on the planet.
[Hint: This is the part where you admit you are wrong.]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have claimed no such thing, though logically I'd be willing to defend the abiogenesis
Where you are wrong, however, is to claim there is some scientifically acceptable and proven account for the beginning of life on the planet.
hypothesis, if you'd like me to.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneWhere did I say that I expect you to respect me?
That's some gall to expect to be respected when you're not willing to give respect in return, just because you disagree with a concept that you do not personally believe in.
If you do believe in antagonizing your fellow man by not respecting their beliefs, how can you expect to be respected in turn? How does this make sense?
This is not a war, so I o ...[text shortened]... warfare against people you merely disagree with is anti-social, at best, and hateful, at worst.
I oppose everything you believe in and hold dear.
I would be insane to expect you to respect me.
I am not preprepared to respect your position because it's stupid and wrong.
It's utterly irrational and damaging to yourself and society.
Why on Earth should I respect a position that I believe to be wrong, stupid and
dangerous???