Moderator: Moderators
I'm gonna pass over the whole 'perversions of unbelieving minds'. I'm just gonna trust this writer had nothing but love in his heart when he said it.Not one human has ever proved anything in the Bible to be untrue. The truth remains in spite of all attacks against it. On the other side of the coin, the words of the Bible apply perfectly to all mankind, while opposing the perversions of unbelieving minds.
Not by me. It simply means there is more to learn. Your generalizations are not universally true.Zzyzx wrote:The sole (or "soul") criteria used by religionists to decide what scientific information to accept is whether it can be made to sound as though it supports supernaturalism. Any scientific information that disputes biblical claims is ignored, rejected or condemned.Cmass wrote:I find it curious that you use bits and pieces of modern science to help support the idea that the bible story is actually true. What criteria are you using to determine when or when not to plug in modern science when discussing ancient myths?
Hello. I'm in the room. Do you have a question?Zzyzx wrote:That is known as "pick and choose science" from the same people who bring us "pick and choose scriptures" – just use the parts they like and deny, ignore or "interpret" the rest.
I notice you did not actually point out any science I left out, and did not mention any scripture I misinterpreted.Zzyzx wrote:Of course, religionists accept the benefits of science including technology and medicine when needed or convenient – while verbally claiming to reject science. Actions speak. Insincerity and hypocrisy show.
I accept all of the science, and accept all of the scripture. As they come into line for me, I document it. If your next question is to ask what I do when they contradict, I assume (in faith) that the contradiction is just an apparent contradiction, or that there is a reason for it other than the falsification of my faith. So, I study both more to see what I'm missing. In fact, you are seeing some of the fruits of that approach above. I saw the contradiction between science and Day Age theory, noticed some conspicuous words in the scripture, hypothesized what kind of scientific discovery might be out there to find, and I found it actually a very well know theory.Cmass wrote:I find it curious that you use bits and pieces of modern science to help support the idea that the bible story is actually true. What criteria are you using to determine when or when not to plug in modern science when discussing ancient myths?................What I found is that the KT impact killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but dind't quite kill all of the sealife, mammals, and birds that had already evolved... it only killed most of them. Then, according to the fossil record, birds and fish recovered first, then whales, then land mammals, and then finally man appeared... exactly the same order recorded in Genesis 1. ............etc........
"Accepting scripture" isn't the same as "interpreting scripture in a way that it doesn't contradict science", which is what I personally see you doing. From my perspective, you're not "accepting" it, you're actually creating your own from a preexisting template.israeltour wrote:I accept all of the science, and accept all of the scripture.
If we have evidence that says one thing and the Bible says another, the only reasonable conclusion is that we must accept the evidence, admitting that, in at least this one matter, the Bible's just wrong.Beto wrote:"Accepting scripture" isn't the same as "interpreting scripture in a way that it doesn't contradict science", which is what I personally see you doing. From my perspective, you're not "accepting" it, you're actually creating your own from a preexisting template.
And if it gets me to the truth, I don't see the problem. Are you at least intrigued at my interpretation. You haven't actually responded to it.Beto wrote:"Accepting scripture" isn't the same as "interpreting scripture in a way that it doesn't contradict science", which is what I personally see you doing. From my perspective, you're not "accepting" it, you're actually creating your own from a preexisting template.israeltour wrote:I accept all of the science, and accept all of the scripture.
So is your refusal to address me directly with a response to my argument.Thought Criminal wrote:If we have evidence that says one thing and the Bible says another, the only reasonable conclusion is that we must accept the evidence, admitting that, in at least this one matter, the Bible's just wrong.Beto wrote:"Accepting scripture" isn't the same as "interpreting scripture in a way that it doesn't contradict science", which is what I personally see you doing. From my perspective, you're not "accepting" it, you're actually creating your own from a preexisting template.
His refusal to consider this is telling.
TC
Whether I address you directly or indirectly, the point remains. Rather than going with the evidence, you start with your holy book and try to construe the evidence so as to support some interpretation of the book. A more honest method is to simply follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it happens to lead away from the book.israeltour wrote: So is your refusal to address me directly with a response to my argument.
"No Mike, the KT impact doesn't map well to Days 5 and 6."
"No Mike, that wording couldn't possibly be a reference to evolution."
"No Mike, word 'teeming' clearly means original creation."
Or are you just so invested in your disbelief in God and your disgust in the church that you cannot comfortably entertain an argument that reconiles scripture with science?
They why even engage?Thought Criminal wrote:Whether I address you directly or indirectly, the point remains. Rather than going with the evidence, you start with your holy book and try to construe the evidence so as to support some interpretation of the book. A more honest method is to simply follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it happens to lead away from the book.israeltour wrote: So is your refusal to address me directly with a response to my argument.
"No Mike, the KT impact doesn't map well to Days 5 and 6."
"No Mike, that wording couldn't possibly be a reference to evolution."
"No Mike, word 'teeming' clearly means original creation."
Or are you just so invested in your disbelief in God and your disgust in the church that you cannot comfortably entertain an argument that reconiles scripture with science?
My problem isn't with reconciling your book with science, but with your unwillingness to accept that reconciliation is not possible where there is genuine conflict. The best you can do is reinterpret literally false biblical claims as metaphorical. The worst is that you can deny or distort science. These two approaches are what distinguish liberal from fundamentalist religion, but neither one is intellectually honest.
TC
Reinterpreting Biblical claims from their plain meaning to make them fit (more or less) with science would be the liberal religionist, not fundamentalist, approach. By picking and choosing and twisting, then downgrading to metaphorical status when all else fails, the Bible can be made compatible with anything. In other words, the approach renders the Bible unfalsifiable, in that nothing we ever find could, even potentially, disprove it. In contrast, science rejects the unfalsifiable as meaningless. A key requirement for something to be considered even a hypothesis is that it must make falsifiable claims.israeltour wrote:They why even engage?
Look. If we can limit ourselves to the specific example that was brought up, the Theory Evolution, I have reconciled it with Genesis without being metaphorical, and even using literal wording within the scripture. Therefore, by your definition, I have used neither the liberal nor the fundamentalist approach you describe.
You appear to be accusing me of having made up my mind before even entering the game. It appears that that's exactly what you have done. I presented an argument that I have never read here, and so probably has not been considered. Looks like you still haven't... you just put me in your box. What if I'm right? I am not simply parroting back what my church has taught me. I supposed that my faith was true, and then tested the hypothesis, finging that scripture reconciles with scripture. I have given you an example for consideration. Dismissal and generatlization is not an argument. Perhaps you are the one not being intelletually honest.
The ToE says we come from apes/apelike animals. The Bible says God created man by blowing into dust, how can the two possibly square?israeltour wrote: Look. If we can limit ourselves to the specific example that was brought up, the Theory Evolution, I have reconciled it with Genesis without being metaphorical, and even using literal wording within the scripture. Therefore, by your definition, I have used neither the liberal nor the fundamentalist approach you describe.
You appear to be accusing me of having made up my mind before even entering the game. It appears that that's exactly what you have done. I presented an argument that I have never read here, and so probably has not been considered. Looks like you still haven't... you just put me in your box. What if I'm right? I am not simply parroting back what my church has taught me. I supposed that my faith was true, and then tested the hypothesis, finging that scripture reconciles with scripture. I have given you an example for consideration. Dismissal and generatlization is not an argument. Perhaps you are the one not being intelletually honest.
