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

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



Message

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 1:54:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
As to the earth clocks - I'll be the first to admit to you that I'm no scientist, and if you aren't either, if you haven't actually delt with aging the earth based upon un-bias scientific methodology, then you too are going by what you read from sources you can trust. So as far as I am concerned it isn't personal knowledge.


Although I am not a working scientist, I have a background in physics and I am comfortable saying that, of my own personal knowledge and experience, un-biased scientific methodology leads us to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.

quote:

Any idea of evolution says: "I don't CARE what your Bible says, my observations tell me 'thus ans such' and my observations trump your 'word' any day of the week


I'm afraid the scientific method does require that we base scientific conclusions on evidence and observation, rather than on arguments from authority.


Then by placing anything in the same catagory as the revealed Word of God, let alone by even believing that something has dominion over the Word of God, by your own admission sir, you are an idolator. God says: "You shall have no other gods before me." God is so Holy that He cannot even be compared to anything lest we fall into blaspheming. The Scriptures declare that God is Holy, Holy, Holy... Amen. The Hebrews used to repeat phrases for emphasis where we now use such devices as exclamation marks, but NOWHERE in Scripture is "Holy" used in the third refrain save the description of God Himself. (Revelation) Nothing can be compared to Him - Nothing is even on a level with Him - He has no opposite, nor does He have any equal - He is Holy, Holy, Holy! - the very definition and standard of what is Good, and Righteous, and Just. And in His justice He will take all blasphemers and idolators and on the day of His Great White Throne He will grind them to powder. If you wish to exert yours or man's wisdom above that of God's I must say I quake for you. I fear your condemnation sir... Repent! Repent! Repent! For you have NO idea of the danger that awaits you! Repent friend!



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 2:47:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow
You are wrong. I hope you will one day come to the truth.

Well, gee-- with an argument that strong and so full of irrefutable points, how could I not be converted?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 2:47:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Then by placing anything in the same catagory as the revealed Word of God, let alone by even believing that something has dominion over the Word of God, by your own admission sir, you are an idolator.


Is it idolatry to use a dictionary to determine what the word 'syzygy' means?

Is it idolatry to use Wikipedia to determine who the ninth president of the United States was?

No matter how wonderful a particular religious text may be, no matter how much faith one may have in it, it does not contain the answer to all possible questions in it. To answer questions about the natural world necessitates the study of the natural world.



PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:08:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Then by placing anything in the same catagory as the revealed Word of God, let alone by even believing that something has dominion over the Word of God, by your own admission sir, you are an idolator.


Is it idolatry to use a dictionary to determine what the word 'syzygy' means?

Is it idolatry to use Wikipedia to determine who the ninth president of the United States was?

No matter how wonderful a particular religious text may be, no matter how much faith one may have in it, it does not contain the answer to all possible questions in it. To answer questions about the natural world necessitates the study of the natural world.



Neither does the Bible say what color eyes that I have, don't be crass on matters this large; do not belittle it when you know very well the point that I am trying to make. The error occurs when a contradiction is asserted against the truths that are taught within the Bible.

God gave us a mind and an intelligence to rule over the things of this earth and we are to use this to the glory of God, but when we take that God given gift and attempt to turn it against Him it becomes the foulest of stench before the Throne of God. The burnings ones described in Isaiah 6 - the Seraphim - who stand at the very seat of the Throne of God for the immediate application of God's will hide their faces from Him who sits on the throne for they realize they are merely creations that stand in the presence of the Almighty Creator - even they cannot look upon the Glory of God. And yet you, a mere man in a sinful state dare mock the authority of the Holy Word of God by saying that man's opinion and interpretations mean more than the truths revealed to us.

My words may sound harsh, but I would rather you be offended by my words and get a small vision of truth than to go through your life and not see at least in partiality the Holiness of God. Mere words cannot describe, but "Woe to me if I preach not the Gospel."

Search within yourself - "For the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the things that are made." Even tribes of people living on remote islands admit that there is some form of Creator - they may not know the God of the Bible, but they know that it is FOOLISHNESS to think that all this came from nothing. That kind of thinking is one thing that our missionaries never have to strive against. Only in "civilized" countries where knowledge and wisdom is god can a man deny what is clearly shown before his very eyes.

Repent sir, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!



gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:29:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp
You brought into the argument the theories of man as separate creation of human races.


What makes you think I bought into it? I only referred to the fact that it was a hypothesis seriously considered in the 19th century on both a scientific and theological level.


quote:

But his first point is an either/or statement. While he doesn't state that mankind must be subdivided per se. He does state that you either have to approach life as evolution-driven or separate created species.


Yes, the first point presents an either-or alternative relative to evolution or separately created species.

quote:

He assumes something about creation/classification of species for those who don't accept evolution. There are other ways to hypothesize/philosophize on species and their potential interconnections.



Ah, I see what you are getting at now. Yes, there are other ways to hypothesize/philosophize on species and their potential interconnections, but most of them (e.g. baraminology) have been developed subsequent to Darwin. Darwin presented the options as they existed at the time of his writing. He could not, of course, include newer hypotheses developed at a later time.



swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:32:53 PM)

ORIGINAL:swan42
quote:

I'm suggesting that man is unable to accurately record God's word.

quote:

Then you don't believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God"?


Because unclemonkey rejects the Apocrypha, which is considered by many to be given by inspiration of God, then unclemonkey does not believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God". Alternatively, unclemonkey has secretly defined scripture as only that which is inspired by God and is working with a self-consistent set of linguistic rules. That allows "all" to mean something that does not mean "all" to me.

quote:


Please explain how you determine what parts of the Bible are "inspiration of God" (therefore an accurate record of God's word) and which parts are not.

I cannot explain or demonstrate. I do not personally attempt to separate scripture into separate categories. It is too difficult for my small brain to identify which scripture are true historical accounts and which are not. I only entertain the notion that some scripture might be historically inaccurate, I'm not equipped to perform the separation process. Again, I claim that man is unable to accurately record God's word for which so many hang their hats on.



swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:43:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

This is not a distraction. It is pivotal. It is key.
Just as you reject the Apocrypha, some reject Genesis, but not other books.


I think it cases are quite different. If one rejects Genesis, and by reject I don't mean have a different idea about it's meaning, but reject as being unneccesary because it is untrue, then little of the rest of the Bible makes sense, including the NT.


Yes I concede this as a legitimate rebuttal. Someone can read that I use 'reject' with two meanings. How about I rephrase it.

Some reject the Apocrypha as not containing a literal account of history and some reject Genesis as not being a literal account of history.
Wow see how easy it is for words to have have different meaning?



Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:50:23 PM)

quote:

Some reject the Apocrypha as not containing a literal account of history and some reject Genesis as not being a literal account of history.
Wow see how easy it is for words to have have different meaning?


The problem of course is it is still wrong.

Those who reject the Apocrypha tend to do so for two reasons. The first and overarching reason is that they don't consider it to be inspired.

The secondary reason may be that they don't consider it accurate history - not just 'not literal', which is a different thing, but that it in no way represents what happened in history.

Wow, see, how clarity can be achieved through words?



Method -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:55:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanServ

Ben Stein didn't use the word tyrants to describe Darwinists
in positions of influence and authority, but he could have and should have.

His latest movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed"
is correct in its inderect and direct assertions and theme.

Darwinists who hold authority in Schools, Universities and Science Institutes
throughout NA play the role of tyrant very well, showintg no tolerance
for alternatives to their paradigms and dogma.

And no wonder!
Communists and Nazis were some of the most fanatical followers of
Charles Darwin.
Yes, Charles Darwin was also a racist who used the figleaf
of "science' and his so-called 'scientific theories' to justify
his racism.
Nuff said.


Then what objective criteria should we judge scientific theories by? When is it appropriate for new theories to be taught in the 9th grade?

For me, and every other scientist I know, the one objective criteria for any scientific theory is scientific output in the form of peer reviewed articles and original research. If I had never heard of ID that would be the first thing I would ask, "Where are the papers? Where is the research? How do the predictions of ID differ from other theories? What are the practical applications of ID?"

From my observations, ID is 99% propoganda and 1% science. Administrators, teachers, scientists, etc. are fully justified in criticizing those who would teach ID as a science.



gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 3:57:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow
Very good. It is an issue of believers and unbelievers. I was really troubled by people I thought were Christians who believe in evolution, now I realize that they are not Christians and it helps me to not be upset by it all. There is no such thing as a Christian unbeliever. There are those who fool themselves but at the bottom of it all... God does not lie. Those who call Him a liar are not His.

J


In saying this you are making a personal attack on my faith. I am a Christian by every criterion set out in the New Testament. I do not place my faith in evolution; I place my faith in Christ. But I do accept that evolution is the most accurate scientific model we have of the development of bio-diversity. I accept it in the same way as I do gravity or galaxies, not as a matter of faith, but of science.

I do not call God a liar. I do not sub-divide scripture into passages I believe and passages I reject. I accept all of them in faith and in accordance to what the author intended so far as we can determine that. I have thoroughly studied YEC claims to be a good interpretation of scripture and creation and discovered it is neither. Nor can I say much different for ID. It is sloppy science and bad theology.

The claim that one must hold to your preferred interpretation of scripture to be a Christian is a monumental lie and I refuse to let it go unchallenged.



PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 4:16:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow
Very good. It is an issue of believers and unbelievers. I was really troubled by people I thought were Christians who believe in evolution, now I realize that they are not Christians and it helps me to not be upset by it all. There is no such thing as a Christian unbeliever. There are those who fool themselves but at the bottom of it all... God does not lie. Those who call Him a liar are not His.

J


In saying this you are making a personal attack on my faith. I am a Christian by every criterion set out in the New Testament. I do not place my faith in evolution; I place my faith in Christ. But I do accept that evolution is the most accurate scientific model we have of the development of bio-diversity. I accept it in the same way as I do gravity or galaxies, not as a matter of faith, but of science.

I do not call God a liar. I do not sub-divide scripture into passages I believe and passages I reject. I accept all of them in faith and in accordance to what the author intended so far as we can determine that. I have thoroughly studied YEC claims to be a good interpretation of scripture and creation and discovered it is neither. Nor can I say much different for ID. It is sloppy science and bad theology.

The claim that one must hold to your preferred interpretation of scripture to be a Christian is a monumental lie and I refuse to let it go unchallenged.


Friend, with all the sincerity that I posses, and with no ill intent I am compelled to ask you what you make of the creation story in Genesis? God truely did tell us that He created everything according to its "kind," and that man was created "in the image of God." This can be read from the Hebrew texts as plainly as we read in the various English texts that we have - I know this because I've done it. Is this the Word of God to us? Or must we read "what he meant to say" into this? Metaphores are one thing, but even a metaphorical interpretation of the creation story cannot yield evolution.

Once again, how do you take it to mean?



PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 4:31:25 PM)

I don't intend this as a question directed at any one person, but rather as a general question for anyone to give me insight.

What is it about the Word of God that would drive a person to say that you cannot take it literally?

Is it that the Bible makes incredible claims or hard teachings? The secular law makes some incredible demands of people, but many are willing to submit to the law. Is it that books like Revelation are filled with so many obvious metaphores, that we are allowed to generalize and say that there are more metaphores in the Bible than we may realize? But if one is to assert this, we must realize that John, when he penned Revelation was given the privaledge to peer into the very throneroom of God and see the risen Lord Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father - such Holy images are so far beyond human description that the very attempt to use human methods of description invites an onset of madness. God is as Terrible as He is Awesome. Is this concept so far beyong grasping that we attempt to describe the Bible as a lesser work so as to make it easier to accept? Or do we try to make it more universal, and attempt to defend God's righteousness by saying things like "He didn't really mean..."

I am honestly very curious. Can anyone tell me?



mcp -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 5:02:27 PM)

quote:

What makes you think I bought into it? I only referred to the fact that it was a hypothesis seriously considered in the 19th century on both a scientific and theological level.


I didn't mean to imply you bought into it. I know you didn't believe it. But it got brought into the discussion, so I had to redefine my points of contention with Darwin's statements.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 5:03:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The error occurs when a contradiction is asserted against the truths that are taught within the Bible.


As we've seen, there are a variety of interpretations that Christians use when looking at the Bible. Few Christians now support an interpretation that says that the universe is geocentric, but this position was certainly much more popular some centuries ago. When deciding which of the two interpretations is correct, it is useful to consider an independent line of investigation. Science provides one possible line of investigation, for matters that lie within its proper domain.

I think it's fair to say that the development of the science of astronomy has resulted in the suppression of a geocentric interpretation in favor of a heliocentric interpretation of the Bible. Where once people may have believed that the earth literally had four corners, or literal foundations like the foundations of a building, now these are understood as metaphor.

Was there any theological way to determine whether the Bible teaches geocentrism or heliocentrism? When different interpretations of the Bible lead to different 'truths', science may be able to discern which interpretation is more consonant with the real world.



Method -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 5:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
What is it about the Word of God that would drive a person to say that you cannot take it literally?


The map is not the territory. If the map states that a mountain should be at such-and-such coordinates but no mountain is there which is wrong? Reality or the map?

Any description of reality is only as good as it's relation to reality. If the Genesis account does not match up with reality then it is either a) wrong, b) non-literal. Take your pick.



Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 5:29:43 PM)

Getting back (in vain) to the original topic, I went to see this movie again this weekend with a group of young folks, and led a discussion afterwards.

I ended up having a lengthy and interesting conversation with a zoology student who was there.

If anything, Expelled certainly spurs discussion about the issues.



unclemonkey -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 5:52:36 PM)

ORIGINAL:swan42
quote:

Because unclemonkey rejects the Apocrypha,

That’s right. I alone convinced the Jews and Protestants to reject a portion of “God’s inspired word”.
Personal attacks sure are conducive to meaningful discussion.

quote:

That allows "all" to mean something that does not mean "all" to me.

Do you think 2nd Timothy 3:16 is referring to the Hindu Vedas and the Book of Mormon.
I also reject both of them. Are they “God’s inspired word” because many believe they are?
Seems to me you are the one abusing the meaning of “all” by ignoring context.

quote:

quote:

Please explain how you determine what parts of the Bible are "inspiration of God" (therefore an accurate record of God's word) and which parts are not.

I cannot explain or demonstrate.

So what is or is not “God’s inspired word” is determined by your personal fancy?

quote:

It is too difficult for my small brain to identify which scripture are true historical accounts and which are not.

Do you accept the “Hindu Vedas” as “God’s inspired word”? Hindus believe it is and there are many Hindus. Based on what you just said you are incapable of making that decision.

quote:

I only entertain the notion that some scripture might be historically inaccurate, I'm not equipped to perform the separation process.

If ANY of the Bible is “historically inaccurate” then 2nd Timothy 3:16 is not “God’s inspired word”. Do you believe 2nd Timothy 3:16 is “God’s inspired word” or not? If not then please explain why you don’t think it is.

quote:

Again, I claim that man is unable to accurately record God's word for which so many hang their hats on.

Again, The Bible is God’s work, as clearly stated in 2nd Timothy 3:16. Your argument suggests God is incapable of preserving His word.



Method -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 6:00:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Getting back (in vain) to the original topic, I went to see this movie again this weekend with a group of young folks, and led a discussion afterwards.

I ended up having a lengthy and interesting conversation with a zoology student who was there.

If anything, Expelled certainly spurs discussion about the issues.


What were some of the topics that you discussed? (This is not a loaded question, I really am curious. I haven't seen the movie myself so I will hold back on commenting till I do, but I am curious as to what people got out of the movie.)



Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 6:13:50 PM)

quote:

What were some of the topics that you discussed? (This is not a loaded question, I really am curious. I haven't seen the movie myself so I will hold back on commenting till I do, but I am curious as to what people got out of the movie.)


Academic freedom, respectfully disagreeing with one's professors, the state of the debate, what ID does and doesn't say, what evolution does and doesn't say, etc.



gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 6:40:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

I don't intend this as a question directed at any one person, but rather as a general question for anyone to give me insight.

What is it about the Word of God that would drive a person to say that you cannot take it literally?



First, what makes a literal interpretation more valuable than a non-literal one?

Why is it considered that the bible must be either literal or worthless?

As for why people adhere to non-literal readings, it is because the literal reading is plainly nonsensical. As Origen (2nd century) stated, who would be so foolish as to think the days before the creation of the sun are literal days?

Biblical authors did not recount history with the purpose of recounting history. They recounted it for the purpose of remembering God and his actions on behalf of the people of Israel. When they presented history, they presented it in the literary form of stories and freely used many literary devices to enhance the stories. This makes sense when one considers that the stories were told first in an oral culture and that most people at the time were still illiterate and would hear rather than read the stories. Given that the stories were intended for teaching, it was important that they be easily committed to memory, easy to recall. Vivid images, metaphors and poetry are much easier to recall than straightforward objective factual reports. For teaching purposes they are invaluable and in no way detract from the truth being taught even if they are not, strictly speaking, historical events.



gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 7:03:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Friend, with all the sincerity that I posses, and with no ill intent I am compelled to ask you what you make of the creation story in Genesis? God truely did tell us that He created everything according to its "kind," and that man was created "in the image of God." This can be read from the Hebrew texts as plainly as we read in the various English texts that we have - I know this because I've done it. Is this the Word of God to us? Or must we read "what he meant to say" into this? Metaphores are one thing, but even a metaphorical interpretation of the creation story cannot yield evolution.

Once again, how do you take it to mean?


I think the creation stories in Genesis are best understood as a monotheistic response to the pagan culture that surrounded Israel and which often tempted them into worshipping other gods.

The first text is a magnificently-crafted quasi-poetic work which uses the categories familiar from pagan mythology and subverts the pagan message by turning it upside-down. (I can go into detail if you like). The second text presents an etiological story explaining human alienation from God i.e. a symbolic narrative about the origin of the distance between humanity and the Creator.

Neither is history, but the truths they present about the Creator, about the nature of creation, about the nature of humanity both as created and as fallen away from God are all well conveyed by the story form.

No interpretation of scripture can "yield" evolution. Just as no interpretation of scripture can "yield" quantum mechanics. Inserting modern science into scripture is always an error whether one does it supposedly in support of evolution or supposedly in support of creationism.



swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 9:27:09 PM)

quote:

If ANY of the Bible is “historically inaccurate” then 2nd Timothy 3:16 is not “God’s inspired word”. Do you believe 2nd Timothy 3:16 is “God’s inspired word” or not? If not then please explain why you don’t think it is.


The answer depends on the definition of "All Scripture" referenced by Timothy 3:16 and whether one's choice of Canon includes all scripture and/or excludes any scripture. It also depends on the interpretation (there's that word again) of "God-breathed".



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 10:10:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42
The answer depends on the definition of "All Scripture" referenced by Timothy 3:16 and whether one's choice of Canon includes all scripture and/or excludes any scripture.

. . . And whether Paul, if asked, would have included his own personal letters as inspired scripture equal with the ancient holy scrolls.

quote:

It also depends on the interpretation (there's that word again) of "God-breathed".

. . . And how the church fathers determined which ones were God-breathed and which were not. For instance, when they left out the Apocalypse of Peter, was it due to the fact that it was deemed as not God-breathed? If so, it makes one wonder why they included Peter's epistles as inspired scripture, but not his revelation . . .

I know that this is off-topic, but I have always wondered about this.



unclemonkey -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/5/2008 10:50:25 PM)

ORIGINAL:swan42
quote:

The answer depends on the definition of "All Scripture" referenced by Timothy 3:16 and whether one's choice of Canon includes all scripture and/or excludes any scripture.

Canon is matter of personal preference?
In spite of the fact that the Jews had rejected the books contained in the Apocrypha as being inspired (Scripture) early Christendom debated until in the sixth century the Catholic Church and ONLY the Catholic Church accepted them as inspired. The rest of Christendom continues to reject them.
The Mormons and ONLY the Mormons accept the Book of Mormon as inspired (Scripture). Is the Book of Mormon Scripture that only a portion of Christendom accepts as you insist is the case with the apocrypha?
This is the second time I have asked you of the Book of Mormon. Are you afraid to answer?
Also, please identify any Christian sects who reject Genesis as Scripture.

quote:

It also depends on the interpretation (there's that word again) of "God-breathed".

Why don’t you go ahead and admit that what you choose to believe in the Bible is determined by your pet doctrines. That may well be the popular method in today’s society, but it is not proper canon.



swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/6/2008 12:36:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

quote:

ORIGINAL: swan42

It also depends on the interpretation (there's that word again) of "God-breathed".

. . . And how the church fathers determined which ones were God-breathed and which were not. For instance, when they left out the Apocalypse of Peter, was it due to the fact that it was deemed as not God-breathed? If so, it makes one wonder why they included Peter's epistles as inspired scripture, but not his revelation . . .


Yes, 1dblthnk02, this is a good example. Not only did the Apocalypse of Peter diverge into two distinctly separate versions in different languages, and both versions that survive today are incomplete.

If the Apocalypse of Peter was "God-breathed" at one time in the past, then humanity has done a poor job at recording and preserving God's word. The counter-argument obviously is that God's word survives time, therefore the Apocalypse of Peter is not "God-breathed". The counter-argument is logically self-consistent, but also meaningless outside the domain of theology.

In either case, scripture that has survived complete and intact has a higher chance being determined by church fathers as being God-breathed _or_ / scripture that was determined by church fathers as being God-breathed necessarily survives complete and intact. In a war (of ideas) the victor writes the history books.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI