Originally posted by amannionPeople believe what they will, but you were dismissing scripture
C'mon Kelly, you know no book claims infallibility. It's the people who read and interpret the book. The thing that annoys me is the way so many people can use the bible in a respectful and satisfying (to them that is) way, while a few fundamentalists need for some reason to have a complete literal interpretation of it.
Can you explain this?
on infallibility claims. You dismiss science when someone makes
a claim that is as bad? Reality is what it is, and if your going to
dismiss scripture do it for what the scripture says, not what the
people who read say about it.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionNumbskull, the only floods that happen nowadays are local floods. The extra water that is present is removed from other places. Where do you get the extra water in a worldwide flood?!
Ever heard of the hydrological cycle?
Probably not since your ignorance is pretty much palpable.
Where does the water in any flood come from?
Rain ... falls ... water runs off the land into the ocean ... evaporation ... rain ... etc. Get too much rain and run off and you've got a flood.
Originally posted by KellyJayyou're back to repeating the same old lie.
Lets settle this point, the one about small changes adding up
to something new and improved.
As I have said before, we see small changes, but the question
I have is, does that mean that they are doing what evolutionist
believers claim they are, adding up to something new?
Seeing small changes in a flight of something can either mean
one or two thi ...[text shortened]... we can go from a small cell into vast
array of life we see today, is a belief, a faith.
Kelly
There is ample evidence, you just won't accept it.
Originally posted by KellyJayScience doesn't say "this is the word of god (oreven a demi-god), and cannot be wrong". Science says, "based on the available evidence, we think...."
People believe what they will, but you were dismissing scripture
on infallibility claims. You dismiss science when someone makes
a claim that is as bad? Reality is what it is, and if your going to
dismiss scripture do it for what the scripture says, not what the
people who read say about it.
Kelly
It seems unbelieveable to me that you, Kelly, are so willing to disbelieve the evidence of your own senses because it doesn't tally with some pre-concieved notion about how you want the world to work.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere isn't any claim like that in the Bible either; moreover,
Science doesn't say "this is the word of god (oreven a demi-god), and cannot be wrong". Science says, "based on the available evidence, we think...."
It seems unbelieveable to me that you, Kelly, are so willing to disbelieve the evidence of your own senses because it doesn't tally with some pre-concieved notion about how you want the world to work.
science does not talk to say anything.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzFunny this is just what I'm accusing you of doing too.
Science doesn't say "this is the word of god (oreven a demi-god), and cannot be wrong". Science says, "based on the available evidence, we think...."
It seems unbelieveable to me that you, Kelly, are so willing to disbelieve the evidence of your own senses because it doesn't tally with some pre-concieved notion about how you want the world to work.
"...are so willing to disbelieve the evidence of your own senses because it doesn't tally with some pre-concieved notion about how you want the world to work."
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you actually saying that there is as much physical evidence for the creation myth in Genesis (actually there are two) as their is for macro-evolution?
Funny this is just what I'm accusing you of doing too.
"...are so willing to disbelieve the evidence of your own senses because it doesn't tally with some pre-concieved notion about how you want the world to work."
Kelly
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperIt starts with the assumptions you have about the beginning of life.
Are you actually saying that there is as much physical evidence for the creation myth in Genesis (actually there are two) as their is for macro-evolution?
TheSkipper
If you believe for example that there is no God, god, gods than
life holds no sway towards making that claim. If you believe that
God did create the universe and all life fully complete, life is a
grand piece of evidence for God. It is all the same evidence, it is
how you want it to be that will color it to make it say one thing or
another. Faith starts right away in the formation of our world views,
we are creatures of it, like it or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, if in order to understand the 'evidence' for the creation myth(s) you need to be a Christian (or, at least some sort of God botherer) then why are you fighting with all these atheists about it?
It starts with the assumptions you have about the beginning of life.
If you believe for example that there is no God, god, gods than
life holds no sway towards making that claim. If you believe that
God did create the universe and all life fully complete, life is a
grand piece of evidence for God. It is all the same evidence, it is
how you want it to b ...[text shortened]... right away in the formation of our world views,
we are creatures of it, like it or not.
Kelly
Perhaps your time (and all creation myth apologists time) would be better spent proselytizing to scientists so they can see/understand all the secret evidence.
Furthermore, why teach creationism in public schools without first making sure all who attend are Christian? I mean, if they aren't Christians then they aren't going to get it, are they?
Hmmm...come to think of it. Maybe the creation account in Genesis was written FOR CHRISTIANS and expecting scientists to believe it is more than a little naive.
TheSkipper
PS The above message sounded a little dismissive, I didn't intend that. You get my point though, right? Why fight with people about this when by your own admission they could not possibly understand? I get a definite "render unto Caesar..." vibe from this.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzSorry to divert the conversation to this thread from a few days ago, but it's just too tempting to pass up.
Personally, based upon his apparent necessity to try and trick people I reckon god deserves a good long spell in hell.
Scott brings up a great point that should be addressed. He recognizes that God has a policy--- in varying degrees--- of using 'trickery' to trip others up. While I can't concede that 'trickery' accurately describes the finesse used by God, I have to agree that God has consistently allowed things to have an appearance of one thing while the substance was something altogether different.
Two big cases in point, the Garden and the Cross. In the Garden, Satan wrested the scepter of world rulership away from man, thus scoring what appeared to be a victory over God. God finessed the advantage away from Satan by condemning all mankind in Adam!
At the Cross, Satan worked to put the humanity of Jesus Christ to death, unwittingly working the plan of God to the letter, and in so doing, providing salvation for all mankind!
The 'trickery' of God is always against the arrogant, laying bare their schemes and agendas.
Originally posted by TheSkipperHalf the time it's not so much 'fighting' as 'fighting back'.
Well, if in order to understand the 'evidence' for the creation myth(s) you need to be a Christian (or, at least some sort of God botherer) then why are you fighting with all these atheists about it?
Perhaps your time (and all creation myth apologists time) would be better spent proselytizing to scientists so they can see/understand all the secret ev ...[text shortened]... could not possibly understand? I get a definite "render unto Caesar..." vibe from this.
Seriously, I find that I am generally a lot more tolerant of people's right to believe in evolution than THEY are of my right to doubt it.