A Question for Biblical Literalists

Getting to know more about a particular group

Moderator: Moderators

msmcneal
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: NW Tennessee

A Question for Biblical Literalists

Post #1

Post by msmcneal »

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.
Al-Baqarah 256 (Yusuf Ali translation) "Truth stands out clear from error"

User avatar
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 #31

Post by Goat »

GentleDove wrote:
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 read the link you provided about the claim that creationists lie about and fraudulently misrepresent the truth about the T-Rex soft tissue 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.
Uh.. no.. they don't. If they think they are telling the truth, then they are totally and utterly misinformed.

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

Fisherking

Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists

Post #32

Post by Fisherking »

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?
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? ;)

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #33

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Fisherking wrote:
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?
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? ;)
For 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
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 #34

Post by Goat »

Fisherking wrote:
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?
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? ;)
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.

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

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists

Post #35

Post by Wyvern »

Fisherking wrote:
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?
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? ;)
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. 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

Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists

Post #36

Post by Fisherking »

goat wrote:
Fisherking wrote:
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?
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? ;)
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.
I'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?
There are plenty of Christians who are devote that are biologists and accept evolution.
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.
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.
Repeating an opinion over and over does not lend any more credibility to it than it did the first time.
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?

Fisherking

Re: A Question for Biblical Literalists

Post #37

Post by Fisherking »

Wyvern wrote:
Fisherking wrote:
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?
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? ;)
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.
What argument?
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.
Also of course this is not a problem of evolution either
Nothing is a "problem" for evolution because it is a philosophy, not a science.

User avatar
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 #38

Post by Goat »

Fisherking wrote:
Wyvern wrote:
Fisherking wrote:
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?
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? ;)
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.
What argument?
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.
Also of course this is not a problem of evolution either
Nothing is a "problem" for evolution because it is a philosophy, not a science.
Yes, 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.
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

Post Reply