Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I know this guy online who offers an awesome deal on those, if you're interested. 🙂

Oh, and he'll throw in:
http://img2.timeinc.net/health/images/journeys/heart-disease/empty-weekly-pill-box-200.jpg
...so you never miss one. 🙂

What is it? uppers?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What is it? uppers?

It's a proprietary blend. 😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
(Matthew 7:2 NASB)

He's a troll. He's got only chit chat ad homs, a lazy minded troll.

Don't waste your time.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's a proprietary blend. 😵

SwissGambit,

The Aesop Fable thing ?

Which Aesop Fable tells how the heaven and earth came into existence ? Did I miss something ?

Which Aesop Fable explains WHY we DIE ?

Genesis and Aesop are roughly the same in content - RIGHT ?

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Now the article said "the author of Genesis". Did you see plural "authors" there ? I didn't.

That part came later.[quote]Now, that this was derived from probably oral tradition pre-dating Moses's authorship is understood. The fact of the matter is that you still have ONE book with one traditionally ascribed singular person, Moses, as its ...[text shortened]... asten to add - on separate nights - lest I compound their sin by making it a threesome.)

Unique? I have not argued that it was not. Dumb it down? Also not argued. But if you insist that I must place it in a class all its own, it is going to have to be a lower class, because Aesop's Fables are not cluttered up with senseless mass killings and wonderful morally-inspiring tales like two daughters getting dad drunk and sleeping with him (I should hasten to add - on separate nights - lest I compound their sin by making it a threesome.)

It is truly amazing how eloquent people can be whose main modis operandi is to run from God.

Originally posted by jaywill

Since God did not get around to telling us very much about the natural world in the Bible, it is hardly a lot of use then in seeking to understand the natural world, nor is it capable of presenting an alternative to the scientific approch to such understanding. There is no alternative Creationist account if there is no account.

There i ...[text shortened]... ll except that God [b] told us something - revelation.[/b]

What I am reading in this long post is a complex project to take what science has established, with detailed supporting evidence and carefully justified chronologies, and to correlate it however tenuously and imaginatively with the text of the Bible.

This might indeed enable you to assert that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. In that case, your position is not different to that, for example, of the many christian denominations (you may differ from them on other grounds obviously) who are perfectly content to conduct their religious lives without deriding the work of (well conducted) science.

It does not enable you to claim that the Bible shows Science to be inherently false, nor to falsify any particular theory of science by reference only to the Bible. (Lots of science can be falsified using the methods of science - that happens every day). For this, you should actually be highlighting very clear conflicts, in which it is not possible for both to be correct. Since on your account there are no such conflicts, then you have no argument whatever.

When it gets to the point where it is possible to accept both the Bible and Science, then what remains is only to decide if one or the other is possibly redundant. Maybe not redundant in other respects, but in respect of our understanding of the natural world.

You may indeed manage to establish stuff in the Bible that could possibly refer to stuff established through Science. What would be impossible would be to use the Bible to reconstruct the same information if you relied on the Bible alone. As you say, it simply is not in there in a form that could be used to discover what we wish to know. (No decent mathematics for a start!) Indeed, your previous post bemoaned the foolish insistence of Man to seek information other than that in the Bible. We should concentrate on salvation and never mind all that scientific stuff. (Augustine of Hippo is your friend here, as is the Mediaeval Catholic Church. Many Muslim fundamentalists have taken the same view of the Qu'ran.)

I have less interest in your promotion of the Bible as a guide to salvation, than in your promotion of Creationist (or Intelligent Design) videos on YouTube which have been shown repeatedly to be misleading, distorted and flagrantly untrue. I cannot see the modern creationist movement as having the weight of divine inspiration or unique spiritual authority to lend it infallibility. It smacks far more of a reactionary political project with a damaging social agenda, an enemy to education and to reasonable debate.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Aesop's fables do speak of LESSONS through animal stories.
It is not written as world HISTORY. Genesis is.

Again, you wanted something that spoke to important issues of mankind. AF delivers. I don't think studying the history of the Israeli people is nearly important as having good moral values.[quote]AND ... of the books of Aesop's fab r if they actually understand a patient's mental state before making the diagnosis. 🙂

Again, I did not argue this. When I used to believe God exists, I also believed everyone was accountable to him, including myself. If I still believed one, I would believe the other; it's just that simple. But accountability to others does not go away just because a god does or does not exist.

The noble sinner of course can protest that he is accountable to himself, others, and society alone. But these he knows are essentially powerless to enact any consequences of eternal result. You still believe you'll melt peacefully away into the dust after you die. Right ?

Its the difference of being frowned upon or by human peers and judged forever for irreconciled rebellion against the Ultimate Governor.

Noble sounding self accountability is nice. It will never replace the fear of God. Why pretend it will ?

If you don't think there is any real need to be reconciled to God, Christ surely poured out everything convinced of the desparate need of the sinner.

Originally posted by jaywill
He's a troll. He's got only chit chat ad homs, a lazy minded troll.

Don't waste your time.

Yep. I had figured that. Thanks.

Originally posted by finnegan
What I am reading in this long post is a complex project to take what science has established, with detailed supporting evidence and carefully justified chronologies, and to correlate it however tenuously and imaginatively with the text of the Bible.

This might indeed enable you to assert that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. In that olitical project with a damaging social agenda, an enemy to education and to reasonable debate.

This might indeed enable you to assert that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. In that case, your position is not different to that, for example, of the many christian denominations (you may differ from them on other grounds obviously) who are perfectly content to conduct their religious lives without deriding the work of (well conducted) science.

I don't have the time right now to go through all of your paragraphs. But as I see it I will reveiw my position.

First of all I did not say that there absolutely is NO descrpency between any modern or old science information or theory and the Bible. I didn't say that.

I ASKED YOU ... to point out what is an accepted Science FACT and anything written in the 31 verses of Genesis chapter 1 in total and flat contradiction. ( Some reference to other Scriptures crept into the discussion).

I ASKED you for an example. I went out on limb. I thought to myself (Maybe this guy will come up with something.) It was a genuine question.

What you DID propose I objected, and still object that it really doesn't rise to the level of a FLAT and TOTAL contradiction. Yes. I think I did say that at most you have there a possible FACT the details of which are not included explicitly in 31 verses of Genesis.

I tried to show you that we should not consider that 31 verses of Genesis has to be EXHAUSTIVE in details about the physical universe. There are probably FACTS to be discovered by our grand children of which today we know nothing. These too may be excluded from our science writings of today. That does not render all of them FLATLY and TOTALLY contradicted.

Genesis neither tells me what is on the dark side of the moon.
Genesis neithet tells me the history of the galaxy Andrameda or the Crab Nebula. Because these details are not covered, that does not render our information of Andromeda or the Crab Nebula as "flat and total" contradictions of Genesis chapter 1.

Here is my position in two parts.

1.) I don't say there is NO possible contradiction between current level of scientific knowledge and the Bible. I ASKED for an example.


2.) If there is a true flat and total contradiction between an accepted Science fact and what the Bible says, my response as a Christian who also respects science is this:

A.) First let me go back and see what was actually SAID in the Bible. Sometimes we have traditions that are not based upon what was actually SAID by the Bible. This requires consideration of the original language. What did it actually SAY ? That would be a concern to me.

B.) The Bible is God's revelation.
Science is man's invention.

If there is a conflict between the two (given that we truly understand what was SAID in the Bible) the error, I believe, must be on the part of science. God knows all the facts.

Ie. Did the Scripture actually SAY that God created the universe in SIX DAYS ? Well, the word used in Exodus 20:11 saying that God made the world in SIX days, when looked up in my Strong's Exhuastive Concordance, has many definitions. Creation out of NOTHING is NOT one of those definitions.

ASAH is used for appoint, prepare, trim, as in trimming finger nails, or a preparation of a meal.

I can understand that a formation, a preparation, an appointing of the earth and heaven was done by the Creator in six days. I cannot insist that out of nothing pre-existing, out of no pre-existent material or situation of the physical world, God created heaven and earth out of nothing.

So I will go out on a limb again. Try to find for me an accepted science FACT that flatly contradicts in total anything said in Genesis chapter 1. I am curious.

I don't think a hot molten earth or a cloudless sky flatly contradticts Genesis 1. Look at the planet Venus. It is molten hot. It is also shrouded in clouds.

Is it possible that when the writer says "The was [or became] waste and viod, and darkness was upon the face of the deep" he might have had a vision of something like the planet Venus as it presently is ?

Is it possible ? ( I don't have time to even check typos right now).

Originally posted by jaywill
SwissGambit,

The Aesop Fable thing ?

Which Aesop Fable tells how the heaven and earth came into existence ? Did I miss something ?

Which Aesop Fable explains WHY we DIE ?

Genesis and Aesop are roughly the same in content - RIGHT ?

Maybe simpler answers will sink in better. The five questions, answered in order:

-
N/A
No.
N/A
Wrong.

Originally posted by jaywill
It is truly amazing how eloquent people can be whose main modis operandi is to run from God.

I'd like to think I was eloquent as a believer in God, too! But thanks for the compliment. 🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] This might indeed enable you to assert that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. In that case, your position is not different to that, for example, of the many christian denominations (you may differ from them on other grounds obviously) who are perfectly content to conduct their religious lives without deriding the work of (well cond ...[text shortened]... ly is ?

Is it possible ? ( I don't have time to even check typos right now).

B.) The Bible is God's revelation.
Science is man's invention.

If there is a conflict between the two (given that we truly understand what was SAID in the Bible) the error, I believe, must be on the part of science. God knows all the facts.

Is the following in agreement with your beliefs?

Man uses his faculties to understand things.

Some faculties are used to understand revelation.

Some faculties are used to understand the created world.

Both revelation and the created world are presented to us, to the extent they are presented, by God.

How can the two understandings come to differ?

Originally posted by jaywill

Again, I did not argue this. When I used to believe God exists, I also believed everyone was accountable to him, including myself. If I still believed one, I would believe the other; it's just that simple. But accountability to others does not go away just because a god does or does not exist.

The noble sinner of course can protest t ed to God, Christ surely poured out everything convinced of the desparate need of the sinner.

There is just one eternal result: non-existence.

I will decompose after I die, yes. As will we all. And that's it - there are no 'souls' to carry on our identity.

Humans do a lot more than just frown on you when you fail certain accountability tests.

Noble sounding self accountability is nice. It will never replace the fear of God. Why pretend it will ?

It doesn't, at least for me. I have always felt self-accountability. I would like to think that Christians have it, too.

If you don't think there is any real need to be reconciled to God, Christ surely poured out everything convinced of the desparate need of the sinner.

This is a strange sentence. I'll break it in half and respond to each half separately. A) There is no possibility to be reconciled - or estranged from someone who doesn't exist. B) I am not convinced that is why he died. The atonement for sin is part of the legend. I think it is more likely that he died simply because he pissed off the religious leaders one too many times.

Originally posted by JS357

B.) The Bible is God's revelation.
Science is man's invention.

If there is a conflict between the two (given that we truly understand what was SAID in the Bible) the error, I believe, must be on the part of science. God knows all the facts.

Is the following in agreement with your beliefs?

Man uses his faculties to understand things.
...[text shortened]... s, to the extent they are presented, by God.

How can the two understandings come to differ?

The problem in disagreement with man's view by him using his faculties of reason and logic to understand things is that he mast assume some imagined reference point to start off his quest for understanding. He is either like a child without parents who was never told where or how he came into being, like the Atheist evolutionist, or he could be one with his parents, who fully instructed him in these matters, like the Christian creationist. This, of course, is not exactly the correct analogy because we all are somewhere in between these two extremes. But that should give you the idea as to how I see this problem.

The person that does not have some reliable guide is lost is space. He must start with the many assuptions that he can think of and hope all of these assumptions are right. Then from there he can use his reason and logic to see how it all works out.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] This might indeed enable you to assert that there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. In that case, your position is not different to that, for example, of the many christian denominations (you may differ from them on other grounds obviously) who are perfectly content to conduct their religious lives without deriding the work of (well cond ...[text shortened]... ly is ?

Is it possible ? ( I don't have time to even check typos right now).

What you DID propose I objected, and still object that it really doesn't rise to the level of a FLAT and TOTAL contradiction.

From the wiki on Adam & Eve -

In terms of human genetics, the concept that all humans descended from two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Science

If that's not a flat out total contradiction, what is?