I've been seeing on several other boards lately some pretty strange things that are being taught and believed by those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I was curious as to how many Christans here believe in these things, and if they do, then why.
Are there any Christians here who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe any of the following:
1. geocentrism
2. flat earth
3. dinosaurs and man co-existed
If you do believe in these things, then why? I realize that if you do believe in them, then your main reason would be because it's in the Bible, but I want scientific reasoning why you would believe these things. I'm also curious as to how Christians who don't believe in these things, yet still hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, explain their being found in the Bible.
A Question for Biblical Literalists
Moderator: Moderators
A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #1Al-Baqarah 256 (Yusuf Ali translation) "Truth stands out clear from error"
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #31Uh.. no.. they don't. If they think they are telling the truth, then they are totally and utterly misinformed.GentleDove wrote:I read the link you provided about the claim that creationists lie about and fraudulently misrepresent the truth about the T-Rex soft tissue data.goat wrote:As for the soft tissue, you know, repeating misinformation does not make it true.
After being informed of the truth, sometimes ignoring that and repeating the misinformation can be considered lying.
Here is commnetary about it by P.Z. Myers.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comm ... ssue_data/
I don't think that's the concern at all.
Because creationists are telling the truth about the T-Rex soft tissue data.
The concern evolutionists have is that the fact of the soft tissue data totally and flatly contradicts their supposed "fact" of "65 million year old" dinosaurs.
Living flesh and bone cannot be anything other than fossilized stone and/or completely-decomposed dust after 65 million years.
And that's what evolutionists are upset about. The "lie" is actually the truth.
Calling creationists liars won't make the truth of the empirical data of extant dinosaur red blood cells go away.
How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #32Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #33For me it's because these "theistic scientists" so often lack evidence for their claims, and place a god they can't show exists in any gaps in knowledge.Fisherking wrote:Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #34How come so many of the 'learned' scientiests with bibles accept that the world is 4.3 billions years old and evolution happens? Because they look at the data, and evidence , and come to the conclusion first, rather than look to the bible, and twist the evidience and data to fit the bible.Fisherking wrote:Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
There are plenty of Christians who are devote that are biologists and accept evolution. Yet, the ignorant who are armed with the bible think they know more than the people who spend decades studying the field .. even if that person is a devote Christian.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #35The problem is that the scientist that made this discovery plainly states in the article that she is a christian so your entire argument is nullified. Please read the article before you decide to open your mouth and promptly insert your foot. She states this is a problem of decomposition rates not one where we have to scrap multiple disciplines simply to satisfy your religious leanings. Also of course this is not a problem of evolution either, in fact nowhere does the subject even come up. The dating comes from the geology of the rocks in which the sample was taken.Fisherking wrote:Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #36I've asked several times for evidence that these scientists (who happen to agree with you philosophically) are interpreting the data in a vacuum, void of all presuppositions. Have any?goat wrote:How come so many of the 'learned' scientiests with bibles accept that the world is 4.3 billions years old and evolution happens? Because they look at the data, and evidence , and come to the conclusion first, rather than look to the bible, and twist the evidience and data to fit the bible.Fisherking wrote:Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
There are plenty of devoted Christian biologists that do not accept evolution, suggesting there is more to it than a fantasy that scientists are looking at the data like robots, always giving an objective interpretation.There are plenty of Christians who are devote that are biologists and accept evolution.
Repeating an opinion over and over does not lend any more credibility to it than it did the first time.Yet, the ignorant who are armed with the bible think they know more than the people who spend decades studying the field .. even if that person is a devote Christian.
Maybe it would help if you could present evidence that those "armed with the bible" are ignorant people. What does "armed with the bible" mean?
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #37What argument?Wyvern wrote:The problem is that the scientist that made this discovery plainly states in the article that she is a christian so your entire argument is nullified.Fisherking wrote:Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
.Please read the article before you decide to open your mouth and promptly insert your foot. She states this is a problem of decomposition rates not one where we have to scrap multiple disciplines simply to satisfy your religious leanings
Please quote Fisherking where he said we had to scrap multiple disciplines to satify his relgious leanings.
Nothing is a "problem" for evolution because it is a philosophy, not a science.Also of course this is not a problem of evolution either
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists
Post #38Yes, you have asked that, many times, and many times, that answer has been provided. You 'counter' that argument with linking to web sites that literally lie.Fisherking wrote:What argument?Wyvern wrote:The problem is that the scientist that made this discovery plainly states in the article that she is a christian so your entire argument is nullified.Fisherking wrote:Could it be because there are [strike]ignorent[/strike] learned and informed scientists with bibles who know as much as other scientists when it comes to biology and evolution who do not assume naturalism (philosophically)? Why do ignorant people without bibles not accept what these scientists are saying?goat wrote: How come with the rest of the sciences, people accept that the people who work in the field just so happen to know a bit more science and details about it than everyone else, but when it comes to biology and evolution, any ignorent person with a bible thinks they know more than scientists?
.Please read the article before you decide to open your mouth and promptly insert your foot. She states this is a problem of decomposition rates not one where we have to scrap multiple disciplines simply to satisfy your religious leanings
Please quote Fisherking where he said we had to scrap multiple disciplines to satify his relgious leanings.
Nothing is a "problem" for evolution because it is a philosophy, not a science.Also of course this is not a problem of evolution either
It isn't a matter of having a different interpretation, those web sites out and out lie.
If a group of people have to lie about things that can be verified objectifly, and repeated shown to be liars about facts, why should I accept their answers for spiritual things?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella