Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
When you were religious did you believe that the Earth was only 6,000 years old?
He and I used to get into long debates about religion when he used to post here regularly. I definitely remember him being a young Earth creationist (world being 6-10K years old, dinosaurs died out during the flood, same flood created the grand canyon, etc). But good to see he has become wiser with age.
I think the poster BugzBunny also believes that, and of course that lunatic superboy does. There's probably more here but they are in the closet. Despite you not wanting to believe it based on your personal circles, there is a large portion of this country who believe the Earth is max 10k years old. Some of them are among the most powerful and influential people, which is scary:
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.
After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.
Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.
And there was recently a big controversy over possible GOP presidential nominee Marco Rubio dodging the question about Earth's age (he since clarified). It's ridiculous that someone who wants to be the defacto leader of the free world has to answer a silly question like that.
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Don, I do not debate that there are many out there that believe that...certainly there are a lot of religious fanatics out there...but 30% seems way out there to me, that is 1 out of 3...I know many Christians and I don't think any of them buy into the whole 6k year thing with humans and dinos together and all that...Why weren't all these kids objecting during school when we were learning of the Jurassic period and all that? From what I witnessed, everyone was accepting of it.
Perhaps my guess of "less than 1%" is off, I'll give you that, but I still don't think it is close to 30%...
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Foremost, I don't think a persons interpretation of Genesis is a matter of salvation. The bible teaches that we're saved by Gods grace alone through faith in Christ(more broad than the sound of it). I don't think God was teaching biology or physics
The whole young earth dealio is a concept of man, not something found in the bible. The bible does not speak to the age of the earth as far as I'm concerned. Man went through the bible and determined that themselves, around the assumption that the bible gives us that ability
I was asked "Do you literally believe the bible?" in an old thread and I answered "I believe everything in the bible is true, yes." Looking back I now realize what the question was really asking. And to that I answer:
I believe everything in the bible is true, the inspired word. Not that I deny that some things are open to interpretation or even allegory, I dont..(if you will). I wouldn't argue with this, I think it in a way sums up what was just said
Quote:
The Bible is not an allegory but contains many allegories.
Lastly, God has children from all over. People who damn everyone that doesn't do exactly as they do have another thing coming. And thats not me damning the damners
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller-time
this isn't true. the number could be 90% and it doesn't mean there would have to definitely be some of them here.
or some of them could be here and are simply not talking about it.
it would mean there is an astoundingly good chance there is...nearly impossible there wouldn't be unless somehow being an NBA fan correlated with reading the Bible a certain way but it doesn't at all...
there are more insidehoops members than there are people that participated in that poll lol
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by -p.tiddy-
yes you def can...
the only story I think that is a must to believe in literally is that Jesus is the son of God, died on the cross for your sins, etc
most of the others, Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, etc, can be taken as symbolic...
Well they have to be taken as symbolic because they are logically absurd. But as I said before, the narrative doesn't make sense if the fall isn't a literal part of the bible. Normally I don't bother debating scripture because you can't really pin anything down. It is essentially left up to interpretation so once I make a definitive statement a Christian can just say I am interpreting it wrongly.
Additionally I think this highlights to stupidity of God if this is how he decided to reveal his message - through a highly subjective and interpretive literary style. The very fact that Christianity has different denominations reveals the problem with the allegorical approach and overall style. Even the most concise and simple allegory can easily be misunderstood.
Edit - I thought this was your last post, but I was looking at page one lol.
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller-time
Well they have to be taken as symbolic because they are logically absurd. But as I said before, the narrative doesn't make sense if the fall isn't a literal part of the bible. Normally I don't bother debating scripture because you can't really pin anything down. It is essentially left up to interpretation so once I make a definitive statement a Christian can just say I am interpreting it wrongly.
Additionally I think this highlights to stupidity of God if this is how he decided to reveal his message - through a highly subjective and interpretive literary style. The very fact that Christianity has different denominations reveals the problem with the allegorical approach and overall style. Even the most concise and simple allegory can easily be misunderstood.
Edit - I thought this was your last post, but I was looking at page one lol.
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller-time
Well they have to be taken as symbolic because they are logically absurd. But as I said before, the narrative doesn't make sense if the fall isn't a literal part of the bible. Normally I don't bother debating scripture because you can't really pin anything down. It is essentially left up to interpretation so once I make a definitive statement a Christian can just say I am interpreting it wrongly.
Additionally I think this highlights to stupidity of God if this is how he decided to reveal his message - through a highly subjective and interpretive literary style. The very fact that Christianity has different denominations reveals the problem with the allegorical approach and overall style. Even the most concise and simple allegory can easily be misunderstood.
Edit - I thought this was your last post, but I was looking at page one lol.
Let me point out that I am not christian, that I certainly do not believe that a person named Jesus was the son of god. So I am not argueing with you because I disagree with you because we have basic fundamental believe differences. I just think that you take a too narrow view on these things and see this issue in mostly black-and-white when there are many shades of grey. The bolded sentence above symbolizes this in my opinion.
To put it simply: Assuming that a powerful being such as god exists, a being which I assume by your theoretical interpretation would then be more knowledgeable and "wiser" than any human, who would you be to judge that his actions are stupid? Quite frankly we as humans have poblems to proclaim the action of other humans as stupid or wise as we all come from different experiences, motivations etc...and you have the "arrogance" to assume that god has to think like you (arrogance for a lack of a better word, not meant as an insult)? Don't you see that this logically does not work?
Of the top of my head, I could assume that this god does not give a big shit about people worshipping him according to a sricpture made by other people but that the most important thing to him would be the free-will of humans. If so, if free will is the most important principle to him and god basically put humans on earth as an experiment for himself, than he might be just fine with humans doing "their own thing and interpretations". That would not make him stupid.
Moreover, if we assume that the "free will" of humans and their "free development" without major interference by him is very important to god, then I would claim that he actually did quite a good job in explaining the beginning of things in words that the humans at their development level back then would allow to understand.
What I mean is, assume you know come in contact with a native tribe in the amazone jungle and you want to explain how everything came into existing according to newest scientific knowledge about big bang, etc....wouldn't you also talk about the big bang in terms such as "there was nothing at first, not even time...then there was a huge bang, a huge light and in the immediate time afterwards was chaos...then small things began to form and from then larger land was generated...". To be honest, when talking to such a hypothetical tribe, I know I would try to explain it this way to them at first. And this sounds quite similiar to genesis in a way.
And then you let this tribe be...and at first they just communicate these stories verbally until they develop writing...and by then these stories changed a little bit through times and it begins to be written down. And then other tribes with other worldviews and languages begin to get in contact with them...and they do not have words for some of the things the other tribes want to say...so they use or invent some new words...and the original message that you a few centuries ago told the original tribe becomes even more modified.etc.etc. To me, this could be a logical development starting from how God wanted to explain the universe to humans and how everything including religion developed from it. This would not make god stupid, this would just mean that he values free will and development of his/her/its creation over a dictatorship. And again, starting from the assumption that this god being is wiser, more knowledgable etc, than any human...what logical reason would you then have to question god's values?
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookul
Let me point out that I am not christian, that I certainly do not believe that a person named Jesus was the son of god. So I am not argueing with you because I disagree with you because we have basic fundamental believe differences. I just think that you take a too narrow view on these things and see this issue in mostly black-and-white when there are many shades of grey. The bolded sentence above symbolizes this in my opinion.
i don't take such a narrow view in real life. i just find the generic conversations from apologetic christianity kind of boring and useless. if god existed then he can do what he wants and his methods are probably sound. but that is presuppositionalist.
Quote:
To put it simply: Assuming that a powerful being such as god exists, a being which I assume by your theoretical interpretation would then be more knowledgeable and "wiser" than any human, who would you be to judge that his actions are stupid? Quite frankly we as humans have poblems to proclaim the action of other humans as stupid or wise as we all come from different experiences, motivations etc...and you have the "arrogance" to assume that god has to think like you (arrogance for a lack of a better word, not meant as an insult)? Don't you see that this logically does not work?
Of the top of my head, I could assume that this god does not give a big shit about people worshipping him according to a sricpture made by other people but that the most important thing to him would be the free-will of humans. If so, if free will is the most important principle to him and god basically put humans on earth as an experiment for himself, than he might be just fine with humans doing "their own thing and interpretations". That would not make him stupid.
Moreover, if we assume that the "free will" of humans and their "free development" without major interference by him is very important to god, then I would claim that he actually did quite a good job in explaining the beginning of things in words that the humans at their development level back then would allow to understand.
i don't disagree with that. but i'm not talking about god's existence, i'm talking about the literal nature of genesis. literally it is wrong. allegorically it is too subjective. if this actually is god's best effort then i can only conclude that i am failing to see the big picture.
Quote:
What I mean is, assume you know come in contact with a native tribe in the amazone jungle and you want to explain how everything came into existing according to newest scientific knowledge about big bang, etc....wouldn't you also talk about the big bang in terms such as "there was nothing at first, not even time...then there was a huge bang, a huge light and in the immediate time afterwards was chaos...then small things began to form and from then larger land was generated...". To be honest, when talking to such a hypothetical tribe, I know I would try to explain it this way to them at first. And this sounds quite similiar to genesis in a way.
i wouldn't lie to them either. if i am talking to a 5 year old about how the universe began or the earth form i don't need to tell him about the specifics of red shifting or accretion disks, i'd just need to state who, what, when, where, and make it accurate. they can figure the rest out on their own - but at least what they discover won't be inaccurate.
Quote:
And then you let this tribe be...and at first they just communicate these stories verbally until they develop writing...and by then these stories changed a little bit through times and it begins to be written down. And then other tribes with other worldviews and languages begin to get in contact with them...and they do not have words for some of the things the other tribes want to say...so they use or invent some new words...and the original message that you a few centuries ago told the original tribe becomes even more modified.etc.etc. To me, this could be a logical development starting from how God wanted to explain the universe to humans and how everything including religion developed from it. This would not make god stupid, this would just mean that he values free will and development of his/her/its creation over a dictatorship. And again, starting from the assumption that this god being is wiser, more knowledgable etc, than any human...what logical reason would you then have to question god's values?
at the expensive of millions of lives throughout the ages because groups of people wanted to add, reinterpret, or remove parts of the original message? i'm not questioning god's values, i am indirectly questioning peoples belief that this book is really the best the guy could do.
sorry if my answers aren't very good (or even make sense) i am tired and in the middle of cooking dinner.
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
Quote:
if this actually is god's best effort then i can only conclude that i am failing to see the big picture.
the big picture is very simple, do onto others as you would yourself, understand you need to be forgiven for your sins, BE A GOOD PERSON, etc
it's the same "big picture" as every other major religion on the planet
all the other stuff is details for the most part and is debated heavily by Christian scholars...again it is a big mix of different books written by different people, and rewritten by people, etc...it isn't read the same way as normal story book.
Re: The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories
