Posted on 11/24/2009 9:27:06 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Today, November 24, it is exactly 150 years since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species.
The world has been gearing up for this “second echelon” of celebrations for this international “Year of Darwin”, following on from the 200th anniversary of his birth this last February. Atheists and humanist groups in particular have seemed to be relishing the thought of giving further prominence to the ideas of their patron saint. Their adulation is heightened by their knowledge that...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
That’s not an admonishment.
That’s reading more into it than it says... again.
What is it with evos that they have to constantly be adding to what Scripture says? What’s their problem with just reading it as it’s written?
How do you interpret it? All allegorical or all literal or do you cherry pick and do some of both?
And on what basis do you make that determination?
Precisely, but please also refer to the discussion about Thomas. As for the flatness of the Earth, refer to #39.
These experts in linguistics just know what words should/could/would have been used.
What arrogance!
Indeed? So please refer to #154, where RoadGumby writes:
"BECAUSE we are to walk by Faith and not by sight."
So, if I am "reading more into it than it says" ten I am not alone. In fact, I am accompanied by the mainstream Christianity, which derives the preference for faith over empirical evidence precisely from John 20:25 (where Thomas demands evidence) and 20:29 (where Jesus says that blessed are those, who have not seen, yet believed).
WHAT? Just, really, What? What? What is your point? Be precise, use sentences that put forth that which you are trying to say. What?
I do not have the problem of reconciling my way of interpreting the Bible with the observed reality, so my way of interpreting the Scripture is tangential (at best) to this discussion.
OK. Then explain to me why it is that evos brag on how much better their way is because they rely on empirical evidence that can be tested for, observed, and repeated in experiments.
Getting the popcorn ready.
metmom, I was educated before the start of the Dept of Education. What did Behemoth try to say?
Heads I win, tails you lose.....
And you know that your perception of *observed reality* is correct how?
This proper examining, unfortunately, leads to ideas like theistic evolution, but it's not my problem. I am fine with theistic evolution.
Lots of big words there. What is wrong with that first option? You seem to have a problem with the idea that we have a Creator? You rtheistic evolution is a crock.
Your theistic evolution is also misnamed, more properly, it is a-theistic. As it renders man as nothing more than an enormous ‘accident’ of nature. Hardly worthy of a theistic label at all.
No, because they weren't writing a science book--their main interest wasn't in describing the shape of the earth. But when they referred to the shape of the earth in passing, they used words that implied a flat thing with edges. You have to go beyond what the Bible "simply says" to make it refer to a sphere in space.
The flat earth argument is still and always will be a lie promoted by those with an agenda to discredit Christianity and creationists.
See, here's the thing: I don't think it discredits Christianity at all that the Bible describes a flat earth. The important things to learn from Scripture have nothing to do with things like the shape of the earth, and they're no less valuable for the fact that the people who wrote them thought they were standing on a disk under a hard surface. You're the one who thinks it would somehow discredit Christianity to accept the fact that the Bible was written by people who didn't have a clear idea of the structure of the solar system.
As for discrediting creationists: I know creationists don't think the world is flat. What discredits them, in my eyes, is the way they reserve to themselves the right to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge and which ones can't.
Because we (the mankind) also want antibiotics, cancer cures, nuclear reactors, satellites and so on, and this need is well founded in "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
You can't gain this dominion by perverting science in the name of your favorite interpretation of the Bible.
Nothing at all. Actually, I am advocating it here. If you can't understand how an 'accidental' process can lead to order, then you have an easy option: just believe, without adding pseudo-science to the mix.
Your advocacy is a bit disingenuous. Creation was no ‘accident’.
In your case, I believe it may be possible that you came from a lower life form. I know I shouldn;t say that, but there you go.
Process? Where is the evidence of all the life forms going THROUGH that process? we / life should constantly be in the middle of that process, always in the midst of change.
No we were Created as is.
Is that anything like evos who say that they believe God and believe in God, interpreting the creation account in light of the ToE?
If it discredits creationists to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge, why is it OK for evos to do it? Why doesn't that discredit evolutionists in your eyes, who say they believe in God?
Why the double standard, one for creationists and one for evos?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.