Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 670

Thread: Bush backs Intelligent Design

  1. #46
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    Theories, schmeories. An uncovered T-Rex skeleton isn't a theory, it's a fact.

    Artefacts found from human civiliazations that pre-date the biblical timeline aren't theories, they're facts. You can put your hands on them.

    Geological strata. Fact, not theory.

    Humans in North America with the only practical way to get there covered up by the ocean thousands of years prior to the biblical timeline. Facts, not theory.

    Mitochondrial DNA capable of tracing the migration of humanity out of Africa and across the globe over the course of tens of thousands of years. Fact, not theory.

    There's civilizations, continents, oceans and galaxies not accounted for in the Bible. How do I know North America exists? How do I know Kangaroos' exist? How do I know the solar system exists? It's not due to theory and it's sure as shooting not from Genesis.

    I'm simply allowing some facts to inform me. This isn't science vs. religion for me. As we've discussed before, I think religion marginalizes itself when it initiates that argument. Science takes the stance that we're constantly learning more about the universe around us. That what we've learned deserves constant revisitation and that we need to be aware that we still have incalculably more to learn. I've never understood why that fundamentally humble approach isn't embraced by religion. The claim that we understand the bulk and detail-level of God's works thanks to an ancient version of the telephone game strikes me as pretty cheeky.
    I would say that you pick and choose which facts you choose to inform you on the subject. It's not the tangible evidence that is brought into the realm of scientific theory, its the interpretation of the tangible evidence that is disputable and is THEORY. We're talking origins, you're talking about things that are known to exist today. How they got here is the subject, not that they're here, so I'm not sure how this deserves applause:

    "There's civilizations, continents, oceans and galaxies not accounted for in the Bible. How do I know North America exists? How do I know Kangaroos' exist? How do I know the solar system exists? It's not due to theory and it's sure as shooting not from Genesis."
    So what? Who ever said that they needed to be covered in Genesis to give Creationism (based on Biblical and scientific evidence) any validity? You don't find America specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so does that mean the grammitico-historical approach to Biblical interpretation is not valid and one has to adopt the liberal view of the Scriptures that you promote? BTW, the solar system is covered in Genesis.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    does that mean the grammitico-historical approach to Biblical interpretation is not valid and one has to adopt the liberal view of the Scriptures that you promote?
    Why is his view a "liberal" one?

  4. #48
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Why is his view a "liberal" one?
    Regarding the Bible to be a collection of myths and fables with little or no historicity is a liberal view of the Scriptures. The orthodox view of Scripture is that, where applicable, literal renderings are acceptable. That includes the historicity of the Pentateuch.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  5. #49
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    And that could just as easily be rewritten as "...where convenient, literal renderings are acceptable, otherwise its a parable or a metaphor..."
    4009



  6. #50
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    Regarding the Bible to be a collection of myths and fables with little or no historicity is a liberal view of the Scriptures. The orthodox view of Scripture is that, where applicable, literal renderings are acceptable. That includes the historicity of the Pentateuch.
    Oh, but we've been through this before. There wasn't a flood that was 20 feet higher than the tip of Mt. Everest. The sun didn't stand still while the Israelites waged their war, and then resumed moving again. The sea didn't swallow the entire Egyptian army. Etc.

    In other words, the Pentateuch can't be taken completely literally because there are blatant exagerrations in it. I don't see why this is a "liberal" view--it is what it is. It doesn't discredit the message of the Bible...but attempting to assign a literal interpretation to things that are obviously not so just doesn't work.

  7. #51
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Oh, but we've been through this before. There wasn't a flood that was 20 feet higher than the tip of Mt. Everest. The sun didn't stand still while the Israelites waged their war, and then resumed moving again. The sea didn't swallow the entire Egyptian army. Etc.

    In other words, the Pentateuch can't be taken completely literally because there are blatant exagerrations in it. I don't see why this is a "liberal" view--it is what it is. It doesn't discredit the message of the Bible...but attempting to assign a literal interpretation to things that are obviously not so just doesn't work.
    It should be noted that the Bible doesn't say the entire Egyptian army was destroyed, it says that all pursuing the Israelites were killed. The sun standing still isn't a part of the Pentateuch, but I still assign a literal interpretation to the event as a miracle. The parting of the Red Sea and the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian soldiers following after the Israelites is another miracle of the Bible. It is an orthodox view to accept it as such, thus the "liberal" tag for diverting from the historical orthodox view of the Scriptures.
    Last edited by traderumor; 08-04-2005 at 05:08 PM.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  8. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,113

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    I just want to know where Cain's wife came from.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  9. #53
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,160

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    So what? Who ever said that they needed to be covered in Genesis to give Creationism (based on Biblical and scientific evidence) any validity? You don't find America specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so does that mean the grammitico-historical approach to Biblical interpretation is not valid and one has to adopt the liberal view of the Scriptures that you promote? BTW, the solar system is covered in Genesis.
    I didn't say those things needed to be covered. My point is once you allow that the Bible isn't a complete physical and historical record of our planet, and it's not even close, that should open up the door to the physical sciences and other historical sources.

    Seems to me you're willing to classify things as facts when they're convenient to your religious views while you label all inconveniences as theories. I don't ask that things be convenient or fit my preconceived notions. When they uncovered the dinosaur bones and use established dating techniques to verify their age, I don't have to start acting like I suddenly don't understand what they're talking about.

    And, once again, Creationism vs. Evolution is an either-or choice of your making, not mine. I see no reason, zero, whey they can't happily co-exist. Yeah, you've got to pick another starting point for human creation, but that strikes me as an insignificant detail when you're talking about matters of morality and divine love. Even if you want to go back and use the birth of the planet four billion years ago as the starting point, that doesn't strike me as exclusive of Creationism. I'm really not sure why the attitude of fundmentalists isn't that creation is a really complex thing undertaken by an immensely powerful being we can barely comprehend so it's something we'll be learning bits and pieces about yet never fully uncover in our lifetimes. Maybe God molded some sort of ape-like creature into His image. It provided the raw genetic material and he, pardon the pun, He monkeyed with the coding. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you could spend all day coming up with theories about how God might have molded humans in ways that fit into a timeline congruent with the rest of what we've learned about the prehistoric world and dovetail with evolution.

    On origins, you're assuming a point of origin that's scientifically and historically untenable. IMO, it's theologically unimportant. That date shifts and you've still got your souce of origin in place. That's what counts. Even if the nature of origin shifts on you, all you really need is a creator who put you here for a purpose as the basis for any form of Christianity. At its core, it's a pretty interoperable religion when people let it be.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  10. #54
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    It should be noted that the Bible doesn't say the entire Egyptian army was destroyed, it says that all pursuing the Israelites were killed.
    No, it doesn't. It says all of Pharoah's army...
    The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. 25 He made the wheels of their chariots come off [b] so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, "Let's get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt."

    26 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen." 27 Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward [c] it, and the LORD swept them into the sea. 28 The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived.
    The sun standing still isn't a part of the Pentateuch, but I still assign a literal interpretation to the event as a miracle.
    How can you? It's factually inaccurate. Of COURSE the sun stood still--the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. If anything stopped moving, it would have been the spin of the Earth on its axis. You can argue that the *implication* is that the Earth stopped revolving, but that would no longer be a strictly literal interpretation of the text.

  11. #55
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    I didn't say those things needed to be covered. My point is once you allow that the Bible isn't a complete physical and historical record of our planet, and it's not even close, that should open up the door to the physical sciences and other historical sources.

    Seems to me you're willing to classify things as facts when they're convenient to your religious views while you label all inconveniences as theories. I don't ask that things be convenient or fit my preconceived notions. When they uncovered the dinosaur bones and use established dating techniques to verify their age, I don't have to start acting like I suddenly don't understand what they're talking about.

    And, once again, Creationism vs. Evolution is an either-or choice of your making, not mine. I see no reason, zero, whey they can't happily co-exist. Yeah, you've got to pick another starting point for human creation, but that strikes me as an insignificant detail when you're talking about matters of morality and divine love. Even if you want to go back and use the birth of the planet four billion years ago as the starting point, that doesn't strike me as exclusive of Creationism. I'm really not sure why the attitude of fundmentalists isn't that creation is a really complex thing undertaken by an immensely powerful being we can barely comprehend so it's something we'll be learning bits and pieces about yet never fully uncover in our lifetimes. Maybe God molded some sort of ape-like creature into His image. It provided the raw genetic material and he, pardon the pun, He monkeyed with the coding. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you could spend all day coming up with theories about how God might have molded humans in ways that fit into a timeline congruent with the rest of what we've learned about the prehistoric world and dovetail with evolution.

    On origins, you're assuming a point of origin that's scientifically and historically untenable. IMO, it's theologically unimportant. That date shifts and you've still got your souce of origin in place. That's what counts. Even if the nature of origin shifts on you, all you really need is a creator who put you here for a purpose as the basis for any form of Christianity. At its core, it's a pretty interoperable religion when people let it be.
    Outstanding. Couldn't have said it any better.

    Here's a question I have for TR and others who believe in literal creationism:

    Suppose, if you will, the science *proves* evolution...it *proves* that the Earth is billions of years old, that life evolved from less-complex forms, etc. I mean, proved beyond any doubt whatsoever--and it is as much an accepted fact as the Earth is round or the sun shines. Now, what happens to your faith? Does it disappear? Is it shaken? Can you adapt? Would it make you question other tenets of your religion which you have held as undeniable fact?

  12. #56
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo
    I just want to know where Cain's wife came from.
    From the rib of a chimp.

  13. #57
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,627

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    From the rib of a chimp.
    Mmmmmm Chimp Ribs.....


  14. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,437

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    I thought Spencer Tracy resolved all of this in "Inherit the Wind" ? You mean there are still people who believe that stuff Frederick March was talking about?
    Last edited by Mutaman; 08-04-2005 at 06:12 PM.

  15. #59
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    12,638

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman
    I thought Spencer Tracy resolved all of this in "Inherit the Wind" ? You mean there are still people who believe that stuff Frederick march was talking about?
    Yup...They even built a museum right here in the Cincy-area to display their dogma neatly.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/
    Championships Matter.
    23 Years and Counting...

  16. #60
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    No, it doesn't. It says all of Pharoah's army...
    Better go read Exodus 14 again.

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    How can you? It's factually inaccurate. Of COURSE the sun stood still--the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. If anything stopped moving, it would have been the spin of the Earth on its axis. You can argue that the *implication* is that the Earth stopped revolving, but that would no longer be a strictly literal interpretation of the text.
    You're kidding, right? Of course it had to do with the length of the day, not "the sun standing still." The actual verse is
    Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
    I guess when we talk about sunrise and sunset still today, we're just scientically illiterate flat earthers? An ethnocentric view of heavenly bodies is a common literary device.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25