Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[Shogun]

 

[antagon]

Evolution is about the creation and development of species, not about the Origins of Life.

Light, this is not a salvation issue, I think. No scripture suggests it should be so, and, generally, man's opinion on religion, particularly mine, does not mean squat except for himself.

It is a salvation issue. You are calling G-d a liar.

to the contrary, i believe that the creationist argument in the evolution debate lies as if on the behalf of God. science has revealed a lot of truth as to how and why the universe is how it is. choosing specific interpretations which lend the impression that God or testimony to God contradicts scientific discovery is the issue, perhaps the sin, which has really transpired here.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution is about the creation and development of species, not about the Origins of Life.

Light, this is not a salvation issue, I think. No scripture suggests it should be so, and, generally, man's opinion on religion, particularly mine, does not mean squat except for himself.

It is a salvation issue. You are calling G-d a liar.

to the contrary, i believe that the creationist argument in the evolution debate lies as if on the behalf of God. science has revealed a lot of truth as to how and why the universe is how it is. choosing specific interpretations which lend the impression that God or testimony to God contradicts scientific discovery is the issue, perhaps the sin, which has really transpired here.

Either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both. Science is whatever you want to manipulate it to be. True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution is about the creation and development of species, not about the Origins of Life.

Light, this is not a salvation issue, I think. No scripture suggests it should be so, and, generally, man's opinion on religion, particularly mine, does not mean squat except for himself.

It is a salvation issue. You are calling G-d a liar.

I feel the Creationists are. We have fossil evidence that points in one direction. Are Creationists saying God put them there for fun, just to play with our heads?

No, you don't have fossils that point in one direction. You have fossils in the ground. The fossils are there due to a catastrophic flood.

He gave us brains to sort things and out, but Creationists would have us believe that we can't trust our brain, preferring to have faith in a book that no one really knows who wrote!!!

My brain says one thing and yours says another. Who's brain should we trust?

 

[rikules]

It is a salvation issue. You are calling G-d a liar.

I feel the Creationists are. We have fossil evidence that points in one direction. Are Creationists saying God put them there for fun, just to play with our heads?

No, you don't have fossils that point in one direction. You have fossils in the ground. The fossils are there due to a catastrophic flood.

He gave us brains to sort things and out, but Creationists would have us believe that we can't trust our brain, preferring to have faith in a book that no one really knows who wrote!!!

My brain says one thing and yours says another. Who's brain should we trust?

the brain thay processes logic and facts
the brain that uses research and investigation

NOT the brain that relies on FAITH in MYTH

 

[JakeStarkey]

Light mistakes his faith for reason and evidence for others: it is nothing of the sort.

Creationism is not science. It is not measured by empirical evidence. The Bible is not interpreted by Light: end of that discussion. Creationism belongs in the philosophy or liberal arts or religion classroom.

Evolution is science. It is measured by empirical evidence, and belongs in the science classroom.

Light has clearly failed in this discussion.

 

[pinqy]

Either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both. Science is whatever you want to manipulate it to be. True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.

The Catholic view is that the Bible is true, but that doesn't mean literally true. For example, the "Truth" in Genesis is that God created the Universe and evertything. It doesn't have to be that the story is literally exact.

Besides which, Literalists are inconsistant. A completely literal view of the Bible would mean that breeding sheep and goats in front of trees with the bark stripped would cause the offspring to be born striped and speckled. A completely literal view would also mean that the sun revolves around the Earth. A completely literal view would mean that from a mountain top one could view all the kingdoms of the Earth (which could not be true if the Earth is a sphere). And let's not forget talking animals.

The point is that even Literalists recognize that when solid reality contradicts the words in the Bible, that does not mean the Bible is wrong, just that the Truth is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I feel the Creationists are. We have fossil evidence that points in one direction. Are Creationists saying God put them there for fun, just to play with our heads?

No, you don't have fossils that point in one direction. You have fossils in the ground. The fossils are there due to a catastrophic flood.

He gave us brains to sort things and out, but Creationists would have us believe that we can't trust our brain, preferring to have faith in a book that no one really knows who wrote!!!

My brain says one thing and yours says another. Who's brain should we trust?

the brain thay processes logic and facts
the brain that uses research and investigation

NOT the brain that relies on FAITH in MYTH

I see, you don't mean trust our brains you mean trust YOUR brain. After all, everyone thinks that THEIR brain is the correct one but my brain tells me you rely on myth and your brain tells me I rely on myth. Now what?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Light mistakes his faith for reason and evidence for others: it is nothing of the sort.

Creationism is not science. It is not measured by empirical evidence. The Bible is not interpreted by Light: end of that discussion. Creationism belongs in the philosophy or liberal arts or religion classroom.

Evolution is science. It is measured by empirical evidence, and belongs in the science classroom.

Light has clearly failed in this discussion.

So you are admitting that the bible is science. That is a step in the right direction.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both. Science is whatever you want to manipulate it to be. True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.

The Catholic view is that the Bible is true, but that doesn't mean literally true. For example, the "Truth" in Genesis is that God created the Universe and evertything. It doesn't have to be that the story is literally exact.

Besides which, Literalists are inconsistant. A completely literal view of the Bible would mean that breeding sheep and goats in front of trees with the bark stripped would cause the offspring to be born striped and speckled. A completely literal view would also mean that the sun revolves around the Earth. A completely literal view would mean that from a mountain top one could view all the kingdoms of the Earth (which could not be true if the Earth is a sphere). And let's not forget talking animals.

The point is that even Literalists recognize that when solid reality contradicts the words in the Bible, that does not mean the Bible is wrong, just that the Truth is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical.

So who determines what parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?

 

[pinqy]

Either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both. Science is whatever you want to manipulate it to be. True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.

The Catholic view is that the Bible is true, but that doesn't mean literally true. For example, the "Truth" in Genesis is that God created the Universe and evertything. It doesn't have to be that the story is literally exact.

Besides which, Literalists are inconsistant. A completely literal view of the Bible would mean that breeding sheep and goats in front of trees with the bark stripped would cause the offspring to be born striped and speckled. A completely literal view would also mean that the sun revolves around the Earth. A completely literal view would mean that from a mountain top one could view all the kingdoms of the Earth (which could not be true if the Earth is a sphere). And let's not forget talking animals.

The point is that even Literalists recognize that when solid reality contradicts the words in the Bible, that does not mean the Bible is wrong, just that the Truth is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical.

So who determines what parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?

Well, let's take the examples I gave. What will happen if you breed sheep or goats in front of trees stripped of bark? Visual stimulation of the parents has no effect on the coloring of the offspring. We know this, because we know how genetics work. We also know the earth is roughly a sphere. We also know that the sun does not revolve around the earth so "stopping" the sun and making it go backwards make no sense. Those are all pretty clear, and even Creationists don't argue (though they ignore the ignorance of genetics).

Miracles fall into a different category in that they are admitted exceptions to normal reality. Water into wine cannot happen, but since Jesus did it supernaturally, it becomes irreleveant what can or cannot normally happen. Stopping the sun is also a miracle, but since it can't happen that way, even with a miracle, then either something happened and "stoppage" was the only thing that would make sense to the people of the time, even if it is an inaccurate portrayal of the actual miracle, or it's metaphorical.

Even literalists recognize metaphors in the Bible.

 

[FA_Q2]

Either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both. Science is whatever you want to manipulate it to be. True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.

The Catholic view is that the Bible is true, but that doesn't mean literally true. For example, the "Truth" in Genesis is that God created the Universe and evertything. It doesn't have to be that the story is literally exact.

Besides which, Literalists are inconsistant. A completely literal view of the Bible would mean that breeding sheep and goats in front of trees with the bark stripped would cause the offspring to be born striped and speckled. A completely literal view would also mean that the sun revolves around the Earth. A completely literal view would mean that from a mountain top one could view all the kingdoms of the Earth (which could not be true if the Earth is a sphere). And let's not forget talking animals.

The point is that even Literalists recognize that when solid reality contradicts the words in the Bible, that does not mean the Bible is wrong, just that the Truth is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical.

So who determines what parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?

Each individual that reads it. Did you not decide what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are to be takes as parable or did you allow some other person interpit it for you? Leaving your faith to another's interpretation would be dangerous in my mind, what would be their motivation to interpret it for you?

 

[antagon]

It is a salvation issue. You are calling G-d a liar.

to the contrary, i believe that the creationist argument in the evolution debate lies as if on the behalf of God. science has revealed a lot of truth as to how and why the universe is how it is. choosing specific interpretations which lend the impression that God or testimony to God contradicts scientific discovery is the issue, perhaps the sin, which has really transpired here.

Either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both. Science is whatever you want to manipulate it to be. True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.

the bible is a book. as such you have interpreted the words within it (as translated to english, also the result of additional interpretation/interpolation). for example, how should the words 'True science is that which is observable and thus far has shown to support the Biblical view.' be interpreted? what does true science mean? i have an idea, but it would make your statement a falsehood. similarly, the interpretation of the bible which i take doesn't create a contradiction with science with respect to evolution.

your interpretation seems to be the basis of a need to refute scientific observations on the basis of biblical ones. is that 'real science'?

while you point out flaws in scientific observation and defer to your own classification of 'real science', i think the issue is your interpretation of the bible. do you think that your interpretation of the bible maintains the accuracy which you claim it to have when you've held that interpretation to scientific scrutiny?

 

[antagon]

The Catholic view is that the Bible is true, but that doesn't mean literally true. For example, the "Truth" in Genesis is that God created the Universe and evertything. It doesn't have to be that the story is literally exact.

Besides which, Literalists are inconsistant. A completely literal view of the Bible would mean that breeding sheep and goats in front of trees with the bark stripped would cause the offspring to be born striped and speckled. A completely literal view would also mean that the sun revolves around the Earth. A completely literal view would mean that from a mountain top one could view all the kingdoms of the Earth (which could not be true if the Earth is a sphere). And let's not forget talking animals.

The point is that even Literalists recognize that when solid reality contradicts the words in the Bible, that does not mean the Bible is wrong, just that the Truth is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical.

So who determines what parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?

Each individual that reads it. Did you not decide what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are to be takes as parable or did you allow some other person interpit it for you? Leaving your faith to another's interpretation would be dangerous in my mind, what would be their motivation to interpret it for you?

could community consensus on interpretation be one of the basic purposes of religion? could that be why the bible has been so widely published and that sunday schools and sermons complement its issuance so pervasively? the auspices of the motivation such interpreters maintain is that which is challenged by the bible itself: 'do this in memory of me'... to be 'fishers of men', etc. behind those auspices, history shows, are many personal, political and economic motivations which you are wise to be concerned about.

i dont think there's any way to escape interpretation, even when reading a document yourself. literalism and fundamentalism are fallacies in this way. the quoran isn't even translated. notwithstanding that, the interpretation of the words is dramatically varied from burhkas to belly-dancers. the idea that the contents of an entire book could be put in action by humans or a group of humans is very ambitious and optimistic to say the least. if the bible were to merely say 'do unto others as you would have done to you', many of the issues which have arisen from the exploitation of its complexity and the necessity for interpretation could have been avoided... a different dimension, i guess.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The Catholic view is that the Bible is true, but that doesn't mean literally true. For example, the "Truth" in Genesis is that God created the Universe and evertything. It doesn't have to be that the story is literally exact.

Besides which, Literalists are inconsistant. A completely literal view of the Bible would mean that breeding sheep and goats in front of trees with the bark stripped would cause the offspring to be born striped and speckled. A completely literal view would also mean that the sun revolves around the Earth. A completely literal view would mean that from a mountain top one could view all the kingdoms of the Earth (which could not be true if the Earth is a sphere). And let's not forget talking animals.

The point is that even Literalists recognize that when solid reality contradicts the words in the Bible, that does not mean the Bible is wrong, just that the Truth is not necessarily literal, but metaphorical.

So who determines what parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?

Each individual that reads it. Did you not decide what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are to be takes as parable or did you allow some other person interpit it for you? Leaving your faith to another's interpretation would be dangerous in my mind, what would be their motivation to interpret it for you?

I take the Bible seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Light mistakes his faith for reason and evidence for others: it is nothing of the sort.

Creationism is not science. It is not measured by empirical evidence. The Bible is not interpreted by Light: end of that discussion. Creationism belongs in the philosophy or liberal arts or religion classroom.

Evolution is science. It is measured by empirical evidence, and belongs in the science classroom.

Light has clearly failed in this discussion.

So you are admitting that the bible is science. That is a step in the right direction.

The Bible is not science, Light, because it is not empirical, because it can't be proved by scientific means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You should, Light, you should.

Be you take yourself far too seriously.

God can do His work without your help or direction.

You need some time alone communing with the infinite, because you are messing up here.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Light mistakes his faith for reason and evidence for others: it is nothing of the sort.

Creationism is not science. It is not measured by empirical evidence. The Bible is not interpreted by Light: end of that discussion. Creationism belongs in the philosophy or liberal arts or religion classroom.

Evolution is science. It is measured by empirical evidence, and belongs in the science classroom.

Light has clearly failed in this discussion.

So you are admitting that the bible is science. That is a step in the right direction.

The Bible is not science, Light, because it is not empirical, because it can't be proved by scientific means.

 

[rikules]

No, you don't have fossils that point in one direction. You have fossils in the ground. The fossils are there due to a catastrophic flood.



My brain says one thing and yours says another. Who's brain should we trust?

the brain thay processes logic and facts
the brain that uses research and investigation

NOT the brain that relies on FAITH in MYTH

I see, you don't mean trust our brains you mean trust YOUR brain. After all, everyone thinks that THEIR brain is the correct one but my brain tells me you rely on myth and your brain tells me I rely on myth. Now what?

no
I don't mean that at all

I mean what I said;

your method; faith in a god that doesn't exist
belief in a religion that is more full of holes than a swiss cheese

the method I prefer:
MEN and women analyze
investigate
reseach
contemplate
compare notes
do studies

certainly I trust my brain more than I trust your mindless belief

 

[rikules]

So who determines what parts of the bible are true and what parts are not?

Each individual that reads it. Did you not decide what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are to be takes as parable or did you allow some other person interpit it for you? Leaving your faith to another's interpretation would be dangerous in my mind, what would be their motivation to interpret it for you?

I take the Bible seriously.

so you agree with god that slavery is ok?

you think women should be subservient?

you think homosexuals and adulterers should be executed?

you think NOBODY has a right to worship any god but YOUR god?

you think YOUR brain should get to decide for EVERYONE?