RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants.

RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 10:04:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Allow me to share a Word that is extremely relavent to evolutionists / atheists, ect... Romans 1: 20-23 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, I think that line right there sums up many of the theistic evolutionist's view. Through understanding the natural world, you can come to a greater understanding of God. It may be their justification but it is WRONG. The passage contains the word "creation," not "evolution" or "change." The Koine Greek word for this is "ktiðsiv," or " Ktisis." This is to produce something from absolutely nothing. This passage can be interpreted in no other way than God speaking things into existence from nothing - creation... I would say your getting to hung up on literalism... saying God created everything from nothing doesn't rebuke evolution or the big bang or anything else. But actually there are several definitions for this word, apparently: quote: 1. the act of founding, establishing, building etc a. the act of creating, creation b. creation i.e. thing created of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b c. anything created 1b d. after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b e. the sum or aggregate of things created f. institution, ordinance

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 10:04:31 AM)
quote: They most certainly could and do base their beliefs on chemistry. By demonstrating that biology can be reduced to chemistry they justify their metaphysical rejection of theism, a position that equates chemistry with non-theism. Basically the position is that if it is "only chemistry" it is patently "not God". That is a metaphysical pre-supposition. Sure, if they could do that, then you might have a case, though technically it's not 'chemistry' that is the basis but a particular theory of abiogenesis that happens to employ chemistry. quote: And you cannot honestly say that believers do not find the panorama of evolution an awe-inspiring evidence of God on a par with the glory of the heavens. Insofar as evolution impinges on metaphysics, it goes both ways and to present only one metaphysical option is disingenuous . I am sure you do; however, we should never find in a scientific theory the basis of our faith, nor invest any metaphysical credence to scientific theories, as scientific ideas by their very nature are ever changing. quote: Evolution is more than common ancestry. So is it only common ancestry that is the stumbling block for you? You have no problem with natural selection, for example? Nor with something less than universal common ancestry e.g the common ancestry of rats and rabbits? I didn't say it was only common descent; reread, re-ask.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 10:26:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Allow me to share a Word that is extremely relavent to evolutionists / atheists, ect... Romans 1: 20-23 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, I think that line right there sums up many of the theistic evolutionist's view. Through understanding the natural world, you can come to a greater understanding of God. It may be their justification but it is WRONG. The passage contains the word "creation," not "evolution" or "change." The Koine Greek word for this is "ktiðsiv," or " Ktisis." This is to produce something from absolutely nothing. This passage can be interpreted in no other way than God speaking things into existence from nothing - creation... I would say your getting to hung up on literalism... saying God created everything from nothing doesn't rebuke evolution or the big bang or anything else. But actually there are several definitions for this word, apparently: quote: 1. the act of founding, establishing, building etc a. the act of creating, creation b. creation i.e. thing created of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b c. anything created 1b d. after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b e. the sum or aggregate of things created f. institution, ordinance Yes, there are several definitions of the Greek text, but not a nary one of them refers to any remote hint of an evolutionary idea. Dear sir, you say that I am hung up on Biblical literalism, but I proclaim to you that there is NO other way to interpret the Bible! If we do not take the Bible literally, then definition of terms or ideas are now open to our own interpretations based on our standards and our own emotions. Friend, before being called by God into His family, we HATE God. If a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is taken, then NO ONE would be saved. Our own emotions or ideals are no standard for interpretation because those are the very things that Christ wants to change! Sir, a literal interpretation is the only way to interpret the texts. Someone, and I can't remember who, made a snide remark about how fundamentalism in Islam was certainly a bad thing - intending to say that fundamentalism in Christianity is also a bad thing. Sir, you must be VERY careful not to put Christianity in the same box with ANYTHING else. Christianity is a relationship with the very God - Yaweh. Every other interpretation of God is wrong, and a fundamentalist view of any other god is just as damning as a casual view of that god, which is just as damning as a casual view of the God Jesus the Christ! In Christianity, fundamentalism is getting back to the bare bones teachings that are found only within the Bible, it is a dedication to God stripped of the worldly trappings or doctrines that are taught in most Churches around this country. Fundamentalism says "If it's not found in the Bible, or based on Biblical teaching, it's not true."

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 10:34:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jbow Again, the idea that only a scientist and criticize a scientist is completely weird. It is a way to avoid discussion. It is like saying that only a chef can criticize another chefs cooking. It is foolishness. That's funny: I was just told in another thread that only a scientist can support that there is global warming, and that none do. Now that's weird. quote: I am really glad that Ben has done something to bring the farse of evolution and the tactics of evolutionists into the light. But he didn't. He made ersatz martyrs out of a handful of teachers who were dismissed because of their inadequate work, not because of their personal beliefs. quote: All of evolution theory is based solely on assumptions, it is a faith based system that is in place because men do not want t acknowledge their creator, the Lord Jesus. Evolution sceince is completely flawed. It is arduous to reason with this level of nescience. You are not just misguided; you are 100% wrong. quote: Evolutionary scientists supress the truth in unrighteousness. They consistantly throw out test results that do not support their assumptions that the universe is billions of years old because they are obviously erronious... this is science? Wrong. If they actually did this, the theory would not have gone through the last 150 years of refining and reproving that is has gone through (which is not based on the age of the universe, btw). quote: NASA did this years ago when they dated the moon rocks. First they said that they were 4 to 4.5 billion years old then a few years later they published that the rocks were 3 to 5.5 billion years old. The oldest rocks were dated at 4.5 billion, while newer rocks dated as late as 3.16 billion. So what? And what does any of this have to do with "Expelled?" quote: Mt. Saint Helens... in eleven years after the eruption 600' of strata formed. Of course geologists have taught that this takes hundreds of thousands of years, but it took eleven. It takes relatively little time for strata to layer itself out, but it takes far more time for compacted limestone to form. quote: There were trees deposited in Spirit lake, roots down, at different levels just like petrified forests on other places that "science" tells us are millions of years old Again, none have yet compacted into limestone. quote: ... but there they are in Spirit lake randomly placed, like a forest. Some are buried in the sediment up their trunks and some just a few feet. Spirit lake is showing a fossil forest in production and it is happening very fast. No it isn't. No limestone, no petrification. What is your point? quote: Science based on assumptions is not science... Well, at least we agree on this one point. However, I must point out that your belief in the bible over hard science is based entirely on assumptions as well. But, faith isn't a science, so you're okay. quote: That is the problem with evolutionary science, it is not provable, it is not science, it is a faith based system of assumptions. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. But thanks for playing.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 10:54:21 AM)
Well, folks believed that the earth was flat for a long time too until it was discovered that it was in fact round. False conclusions are often believed for quite a long time - perpetuated simply because they are popular, not necessarily because they are correct. The only difference here is that no scientist will ever find a fossilized animal with a date stamped into his butt that says he died 4,000 years ago. (right next to the 'made in china' sticker) Scientists and atheists latch onto the idea of evolution becuase it is a story that attempts to describe things without God. If there were no story of evolution, then the atheist would have very little to base his case upon, which is why they become so adamant in their opposition. (It was Aldous Huxley who said that "Evolution was accepted so readily because the idea of God interfered with our sexual freedom.") Hmmm, so you believe in evolution not for the evidence, but because you don't want to believe in God? Interesting... In fact there is no evidence for evolution; I'm no scientist, but I know that God speaks of special creation - since I know God's word to be true, I know that evolution is false.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 11:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Actually, this is a critical point; chemistry really doesn’t impinge on any metaphysical consideration; Dawkins et. al. couldn’t base their beliefs on chemistry; but they do on evolution. Chemistry was important in destroying the concept of vitalism, that living things were essentially different in substance from non-living things. This development had 'metaphysical' repercussions on thoughts about the nature of the soul or the elan vital.

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 11:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Yes, there are several definitions of the Greek text, but not a nary one of them refers to any remote hint of an evolutionary idea. How do they negate evolution? There's nary a hint of quantum mechanics in the Bible either, does that mean its wrong? quote: Dear sir, you say that I am hung up on Biblical literalism, but I proclaim to you that there is NO other way to interpret the Bible! If we do not take the Bible literally, then definition of terms or ideas are now open to our own interpretations based on our standards and our own emotions. Friend, before being called by God into His family, we HATE God. If a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is taken, then NO ONE would be saved. Our own emotions or ideals are no standard for interpretation because those are the very things that Christ wants to change! Sir, a literal interpretation is the only way to interpret the texts. Of course there is... You can't tell me you take every part of the old testament literally, or you'd have no problem with slave ownership, or stoning disobedient kids. You already walk that slippery slope while pretending not too. quote: Someone, and I can't remember who, made a snide remark about how fundamentalism in Islam was certainly a bad thing - intending to say that fundamentalism in Christianity is also a bad thing. Sir, you must be VERY careful not to put Christianity in the same box with ANYTHING else. Christianity is a relationship with the very God - Yaweh. Every other interpretation of God is wrong, and a fundamentalist view of any other god is just as damning as a casual view of that god, which is just as damning as a casual view of the God Jesus the Christ! In Christianity, fundamentalism is getting back to the bare bones teachings that are found only within the Bible, it is a dedication to God stripped of the worldly trappings or doctrines that are taught in most Churches around this country. Fundamentalism says "If it's not found in the Bible, or based on Biblical teaching, it's not true." You do know Muslim's essentially worship the same God... and Jesus Christ is one of their most important religious figures. Its the radical nature of fundamentalism which is causing all the problems. But Christianity and Islam are not that far apart, really.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 12:04:15 PM)
quote: Chemistry was important in destroying the concept of vitalism, that living things were essentially different in substance from non-living things. This development had 'metaphysical' repercussions on thoughts about the nature of the soul or the elan vital. I think a greater understanding the natural world certainly has metaphysical reprucussions, but I don't think any broad metaphysic depends on scientific theory the way atheism has come to depend on evolution.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 12:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Yes, there are several definitions of the Greek text, but not a nary one of them refers to any remote hint of an evolutionary idea. How do they negate evolution? There's nary a hint of quantum mechanics in the Bible either, does that mean its wrong? quote: Dear sir, you say that I am hung up on Biblical literalism, but I proclaim to you that there is NO other way to interpret the Bible! If we do not take the Bible literally, then definition of terms or ideas are now open to our own interpretations based on our standards and our own emotions. Friend, before being called by God into His family, we HATE God. If a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is taken, then NO ONE would be saved. Our own emotions or ideals are no standard for interpretation because those are the very things that Christ wants to change! Sir, a literal interpretation is the only way to interpret the texts. Of course there is... You can't tell me you take every part of the old testament literally, or you'd have no problem with slave ownership, or stoning disobedient kids. You already walk that slippery slope while pretending not too. quote: Someone, and I can't remember who, made a snide remark about how fundamentalism in Islam was certainly a bad thing - intending to say that fundamentalism in Christianity is also a bad thing. Sir, you must be VERY careful not to put Christianity in the same box with ANYTHING else. Christianity is a relationship with the very God - Yaweh. Every other interpretation of God is wrong, and a fundamentalist view of any other god is just as damning as a casual view of that god, which is just as damning as a casual view of the God Jesus the Christ! In Christianity, fundamentalism is getting back to the bare bones teachings that are found only within the Bible, it is a dedication to God stripped of the worldly trappings or doctrines that are taught in most Churches around this country. Fundamentalism says "If it's not found in the Bible, or based on Biblical teaching, it's not true." You do know Muslim's essentially worship the same God... and Jesus Christ is one of their most important religious figures. Its the radical nature of fundamentalism which is causing all the problems. But Christianity and Islam are not that far apart, really. Wrong, wrong, wrong... You are doing nothing but proclaiming your own ignorance of both Islam and Christianity. Are you a Theologian? Can you tell me the major differences between the beliefs of Islam and the beliefs of Christianity? My guess is that you can't without a Google search. Friend, they are as far apart in their doctrine as the east is from the west. Muhammed was what is termed in original Hebrew: a "space cadet." He was so far out there when he compiled his writings that he couldn't even keep his facts straight - you can write a book on the contradictions and falacies in the quran. Their book says that Christians worship the Father, Son, and MOTHER... Muhammed couldn't even put the proper research into the faiths that he was copying when he wrote his book! About taking the Bible literally... Look, it's this simple - YES! The Bible contains metaphores. (Easiest example are the Parables of Jesus) So does regular, everyday speech. You have to look at the meaning of the metaphore as literal, not the metaphore itself. You interpret the literal truth as literal truth and the metaphore as a metaphore with its meaning interpreted literally. This is very important - YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BIBLE IN CONTEXT WITH ITSELF. You interpret Scripture with Scripture. The Gospels quoted Genesis, Jesus quoted Genesis, and they never referenced it as a metaphore. Slave ownership was a construct in the culture of the time - it is not mandated by God. God actually uses this construct to for a word picture for us when He tells us to be "slaves of Christ." As to the seemingly harsh laws in the Torah - yes, they seem unfair, but WHO is your judge of fairness? Youself? Please... Don't be cute. God deems what is fair or not, and God told us that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. The harsh laws and punishments in the Old Testament are menat to teach that SIN MUST BE DEALT WITH. Christ paid for all of sin at His crucifixion which is why most punishment for sin is delayed until the Judgement. I think the greatest question is not "Why sis God punish sin so harshly in the Old Testament?" But "Why does God NOT punish sin in this life like He did then?" God is merciful. And God's sacrifice was perfect. You, even YOU, and atheist is covered by a general grace of God that prevents you from being judged as you should right now.

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 12:20:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Chemistry was important in destroying the concept of vitalism, that living things were essentially different in substance from non-living things. This development had 'metaphysical' repercussions on thoughts about the nature of the soul or the elan vital. I think a greater understanding the natural world certainly has metaphysical reprucussions, but I don't think any broad metaphysic depends on scientific theory the way atheism has come to depend on evolution. Atheism is only dependent on evolution in that its really the only viable non-religious theory on the diversity of life. Maybe a competing theory will arise one day and atheists can take their pick, but right now, evolution is it. There is no requirement that an atheist actually be curious or well-read on science in the least. I know plenty of people who are atheist simply because religious explanations for pain/suffering etc etc are lacking to them, but they could care less about evolution.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 12:28:39 PM)
quote: Atheism is only dependent on evolution in that its really the only viable non-religious theory on the diversity of life. Maybe a competing theory will arise one day and atheists can take their pick, but right now, evolution is it. There is no requirement that an atheist actually be curious or well-read on science in the least. I know plenty of people who are atheist simply because religious explanations for pain/suffering etc etc are lacking to them, but they could care less about evolution. I would say the vast majority of atheists I have known and talk with now, including my own history as an agnostic, include some notion of trusting evolution as a means to deal with as Dennett put it, the 'design obstacle'.

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 12:40:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Atheism is only dependent on evolution in that its really the only viable non-religious theory on the diversity of life. Maybe a competing theory will arise one day and atheists can take their pick, but right now, evolution is it. There is no requirement that an atheist actually be curious or well-read on science in the least. I know plenty of people who are atheist simply because religious explanations for pain/suffering etc etc are lacking to them, but they could care less about evolution. I would say the vast majority of atheists I have known and talk with now, including my own history as an agnostic, include some notion of trusting evolution as a means to deal with as Dennett put it, the 'design obstacle'. I think evolution seems so tied to atheism these days is because it has been under attack from creationists of some sort or another since its inception. No other scientific theory has to combat that influence like TTOE, even though many of those theories arguably contradict creationism to the same extent.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 1:25:05 PM)
quote: I think evolution seems so tied to atheism these days is because it has been under attack from creationists of some sort or another since its inception. No other scientific theory has to combat that influence like TTOE, even though many of those theories arguably contradict creationism to the same extent. I don't neccesarily disagree with the first sentence, and I think all sides of the issue might benefit from the wisdom of Gamaliel here; that being, "Leave it alone, and it will either fade or establish itself based on it's own validity". Of course, truces are hard to come by on both sides.

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 1:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I think evolution seems so tied to atheism these days is because it has been under attack from creationists of some sort or another since its inception. No other scientific theory has to combat that influence like TTOE, even though many of those theories arguably contradict creationism to the same extent. I don't neccesarily disagree with the first sentence, and I think all sides of the issue might benefit from the wisdom of Gamaliel here; that being, "Leave it alone, and it will either fade or establish itself based on it's own validity". Of course, truces are hard to come by on both sides. It does make me wonder if guys like Dawkins and PZ Myers would be so vehemently anti-religious if evolution for the most part was left alone. I'm not even really speaking of ID here, but good ol' fashioned creationism.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 1:51:23 PM)
quote: It does make me wonder if guys like Dawkins and PZ Myers would be so vehemently anti-religious if evolution for the most part was left alone. I'm not even really speaking of ID here, but good ol' fashioned creationism. And I wonder if many who criticize evolution would be less harsh if they felt they detected some humility from the other side.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 2:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I am sure you do; however, we should never find in a scientific theory the basis of our faith, nor invest any metaphysical credence to scientific theories, as scientific ideas by their very nature are ever changing. I agree. When the Psalmist said the heavens declare the glory of God, he wasn't making a scientific proposition. Neither are theistic evolutionists who appreciate evolution as a sign of God's wisdom. The attitude is more emotional and esthetic than scientific. quote: I didn't say it was only common descent; reread, re-ask. I just did. Awaiting an answer. At what point does common ancestry become a stumbling block for you. Obviously not in the case of cactus-finches/ground finches. What about rats and rabbits?

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 2:34:24 PM)
Should we be less harsh against blatant sin? I didn't mean that to sound harsh against you, friend as I know it did - I'm just trying to view this subject as it is. If it is not of God, it is sin, and it must be eradicated, it must be dealt with.

iluvatar -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/2/2008 8:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: It does make me wonder if guys like Dawkins and PZ Myers would be so vehemently anti-religious if evolution for the most part was left alone. I'm not even really speaking of ID here, but good ol' fashioned creationism. And I wonder if many who criticize evolution would be less harsh if they felt they detected some humility from the other side. It's a difficult question with plenty of blame to go around, but I'm inclined to believe (though open to the possibility of being wrong) that creationists "started it," so to speak. This may just be my own experiences, but I've been aware of YEC material (which argues against evo & OE) far longer than I have material arguing against YEC. I remember having an astronomy book when I was about 7 (20 years ago), where my parents skipped over the chapter on the Big Bang, because "that's not what the Bible says," whereas I haven't really seen anti-YEC stuff becoming mainstream until the last few years. -Dan.

swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/3/2008 1:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Then I suppose my question to you sir is if you do not take the creation story literally, then where do you stop? If you doubt the sincerity of one passage, then why not another? Yes, the Bible contains many literary devices, but once you discover these you take what they are saying literally, or you chance taking the content of the Bible as a mere fairy tale. That's the crux (pun intended) of the matter isn't it. Is each word of the Bible an historical account intended to be believed as historical fact? On several occasions, the Bible recounts the same story twice using different words. Which version is more true? The most notable problem is whether to hold the Apocrypha with the same reverence as the "official" bible printed in English, but written in a handful of other languages. If Genesis is a literal historical account, then 3 entire fields of science are to be held invalid. 1. Big Bang 2. Abiogenesis 3. Evolution Young Earth Creationists hold these fields as legs of the same stool. Knock one, and the other two fall. On the other hand, scientists hold these fields as independent areas of study. Why? Because the evolutionist is not emotionally invested when the astrophysicist's beliefs are challenged. Those among the big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) however are emotionally, or rather spiritually invested in the invalidation of all three fields of science. This is why scientists and the YEC speak at each other rather than communicate with each other.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/3/2008 11:57:29 AM)
quote: It's a difficult question with plenty of blame to go around, but I'm inclined to believe (though open to the possibility of being wrong) that creationists "started it," so to speak. This may just be my own experiences, but I've been aware of YEC material (which argues against evo & OE) far longer than I have material arguing against YEC. I remember having an astronomy book when I was about 7 (20 years ago), where my parents skipped over the chapter on the Big Bang, because "that's not what the Bible says," whereas I haven't really seen anti-YEC stuff becoming mainstream until the last few years. If we are going to try to figure out who 'started it', then the point of my comment has already been lost.

tracydolls -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/3/2008 10:19:15 PM)
“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin I always wonder did Darwin know if he was sinning?

unclemonkey -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/3/2008 10:36:40 PM)
ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: Is each word of the Bible an historical account intended to be believed as historical fact? Is none of the Bible intended to be believed as historical fact? quote: If Genesis is a literal historical account, then 3 entire fields of science are to be held invalid. No. What is to be held as invalid are interpretations that contradict the historical account provided in Genesis.

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/3/2008 10:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tracydolls I always wonder did Darwin know if he was sinning? Given that Christianity posits that everyone is a sinner, except for Jesus, how could he not? Care to explain what in particular you feel are Darwin's sins?

drj11 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/3/2008 10:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey Is none of the Bible intended to be believed as historical fact? Only those parts which one would have reason to believe accounts are in fact historical. Genesis resembles creation myth's from many different religions. There is no reason to interpret it as anything but a mythological/allegorical account of creation. quote: No. What is to be held as invalid are interpretations that contradict the historical account provided in Genesis. How bout entertaining the idea that your interpretation is wrong? You ask of science what you will not even ask of yourself. I don't think you have any idea of the sheer magnitude of error you attribute to scientists from the past 150+ years in order for your interpretation of Genesis to be true. It's not just evolution. Even if your movement was to succeed in toppling evolution, you will have to then work on dismantling countless other scientific theories that contradict your interpretation... when one actually and honestly acknowledges this, you can begin to see the danger of this mindset. It's based on such a total inability for self-reflection, and irrationality... the kind of thinking that when wide-spread, topples nations and causes a regression to the primitive.. its extremely dangerous and volatile, and desperately needs to be corrected. To be bluntly honest, there's no room for that kind of thinking in the modern world. The fundamentalism in the Middle East is a great example of this same type of irrationality. Countless other Christians have asked themselves the hard questions and learned how to reconcile the Bible with what we have discovered about the natural world... why can't you do the same?

swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/4/2008 2:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: Is each word of the Bible an historical account intended to be believed as historical fact? Is none of the Bible intended to be believed as historical fact? Which Bible? For the Bible used by Catholics, the Book of Judith appears to contain historical errors. If this account of Judith contains anachronisms, isn't it possible that pre-human history described in Genesis might be slightly less than historically accurate?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI