Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists

Buz - I will respond later today, haven't time at moment.

If you put it that way, I can only agree. But the gist of my argument was that some stories, although incorrect and untrue in themselves, can still convey the message intended, at least if the listener does not affect complete ignorance of the world or his own moral instincts. You kept to a strictly logical interpretation of the matter, which I can appreciate, because I tend to do that myself in most cases. But in this case I was trying to adopt a more practical stance, where inate morality and some knowledge of the world come into play. I believe I should have made that clearer. This is what I meant: you have some world knowledge and can place your mother's statement in the appropriate context. Basically, the situation is the same as with the hero story: the story is untrue, but the message is conveyed. (In view of what I said above, there's no need to react to this, lest we circle around each other forever. It's just another illustration of my point.) Or use your common sense and conclude that your mother is sending out the message that you should not lie. (Yet another illustration.) Which comes as no surprise of course, if you take into account that an alarmingly large number of Americans will believe anything...

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

That's true - but a good painting always takes longer than a bad one.If God has eternity - what is instantaneous or prolonged, to God? If a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years - then God is uneffected by time. Even you are an old-earther aren't you?This is the problem Buz - some would say you don't take it literally enough, some would say a true bible-believer would believe in a six thousand year old earth. Where does it end? It becomes silly - some are YEC, some are OEC and some are theistic evo's. Let's be honest - it doesn't matter how we think God baked the cake, what matters is we believe he baked it. Okay - fair enough - how do you deal with the seven days though? Are they literal days? That's right - homo sapien man - but not a none-talking "half-baked" critter, lol. Well, with guys like Contracycle - maybe. But the science is still observed as objective. If it's done right - it won't matter what secular humans think. The biblical record is still valid - with evolution. Wel...I'm not adding. And if I am - then certainly YEC's are also - as "kinds" in the bible is not an invitation to make a creo kind theory from a book of faith.I'm not saying the bible says evolution - I'm saying that it doesn't but that won't make the bible untrue. It also doesn't mention gravity etc...or train fares in the future.If I write a book about why I got run over by this car - and it said "because the darn jerk done it on purpose - that's why" - does that mean that if I don't explain how I got ran over by the various naming of exact ins and outs - concerning how it came to hit me, then my story is innacurate? Only guys like conmancycle use evolution against God. Thanks - you're right that God judges. You get a bad press here in this town but I am not fooled by that press - many would have taken that question as an opportunity to say I am "not a true believer".

This is going to anger some, but i don't see why anyone would be surprised that creationists are ignorant of fact.They don't need to have facts. They have beliefs, and that is good enough for them. When their beliefs are shown to have no basis in fact (which they invariably are, but try and convine a dyed-in-the-wool young earther of that) they aren't being challenged on a point of fact, their core ideas are being mocked. Something very important to them is being challenged, and that bugs people. (It bugs me too. Talk about putting prayer in public schools and watch how pissed I get)I was rambling a bit, but the bottom line is this: To remain a creationist, one must remain ignorant. If the facts of science are learned, then one must leave creationism behind. The two cannot co-exist. this is not to say that religion and science are mutually incompatible. There will always be gaps to push a god into if one really needs to.

I have a similar but slightly different view. The more a Creationist knows about science, the harder he must work to rationalize his beliefs. For Creationists who know quite a bit of science, this involves a great deal of intellectual horsepower. In general I don't think it would be incorrect to conclude that the most knowledgable Creationist are exceedingly bright.--Percy

Sometimes, there's nothing in between the lines to read.......Did you see anything there?The point is not everything has a hidden meaning. The stories found in the bible could have very well started out as children stories or fairy tales before somebody decided to use them for mind control and brainwash.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

An example is Brad McFall.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Please excuse my ignorance here, but who is Brad McFall???

quote:

---

So by the same token, do you believe in God-selection (GS) rather than secularist natural selection (NS) and God-mutation rather than secularist random mutation?

---

quote:

---

Jar, to whom I asked the question seemed to understand the difference. What's your problem? Read and think.

---

Sorry, I don't understand the difference.You seem to know how to tell the differece, which is why I asked you.Why won't you tell me? I just want to learn.

quote:

---

I suggest that you learn all you can from this place, but do try to comprehend all you can as to how wonderfully complex living things are and the extremely low the odds of it all coming about without an intelligent designer and creator to make it happen so precisely and so complete.

---

quote:

---

The odds are great, imo, and I'm not doing the math.

---

I'm sure they are great, buz, but I want to know just HOW great.That's why I want to see your math.C'mon, show me how you calculated the odds! I really wanna see!

quote:

---

Look the words up. That's specifically what I mean.

---

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.I wanted to know how you meant those words in the context in which you used them:"...without an intelligent designer and creator to make it happen so precisely and so complete..."I already know what the dictionary definitions mean, I wasn't sure what you meant in this case, so I asked you to clarify.I'd really appreciate it.It looks like you forgot this bit, so here it is again!:

quote:

---

Consider also that planet earth, among all the planets in our solar system just happens to be the exact distance from the sun and moon and just happens to have all the elements and the water, etc to make it the exclusive right place for life so far as we are able to observe from earth. Could all this have come to be randomly and naturally? I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Please move on. I stated an opinion and have no time nor desire to be drawn into a side trip science debate with you on every little thing I say.

---

Buz, this is a public forum. I can reply to whom I wish, just as you can.I was interested in the answers you had to my questions.It is certainly on topic.I am interested to know upon what do you base your opinions?

Hi Buz!

quote:

---

OK, Ms Knowitall. I won't disappoint you and make you look stupid by contradicting what you know concerning my responses. G'nite.

---

Go ahead and make me look stupid, buz. It would serve me right, wouldn't it?Oh, and how can you call me a know it all when I do nothing but ask questions of you?I am a seeker of the truth, buz, and by asking you questions I hope to learn something.

http://EvC Forum: Brad McFall

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Brad McFall is EvC's resident oracle. In Greek mythology, as you may know, the Oracle was a great source of wisdom. Brad seems to be just that. But the Oracle of Greek mythology was also mostly incomprehensible. Brad is that too. However, unlike other people who produce what seems to be gibberish, Brad is given a lot of leeway by all parties concerned, possibly due to the fact that Brad just may be a genius of unknown magnitude.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 11-12-2004 09:04 AM

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

quote:

---

No - this doesn't break the rule I made. Jesus being a human is highly probable, Jesus on the cross is highly probable....Infact - the four different texts demand that Christ did die and came to life again

---

People tell stories about Brer Rabbit, and Santa Claus too.Those four texts are just four versions of the same methaphor about inner peace. There was no christ - there was no resurrection - there was no ascent to heaven. It's just a metaphor.

quote:

---

f this here verse says that Jesus is a lamb - and in Genesis it says snakes talk - then the WHOLE bible is metaphorical.

---

Nope, not at all. What I'm saying is that varuous christian denominations pick and chosoe which bits of the bible they are going to treat as literal, and which as metaphor. In which case, I acan do exactly the same, and tell you that you have failed to understand your own holy book.

quote:

---

I still think the bible is the inspired words of God

---

Except for the bits you choose to treat as metaphorical, right?

quote:

---

- I am not afraid of people trying to say it is wrong if not taken literally - they are under the spell of one-way thought - they are focusing in on one miniscule part of the painting.

---

No no - because christians are claiming to have Revealed wisdom, revealed to them by god. It is not illegitimate to hold christians to their own claims. Either the book is the revealed word of god - or it is not. Pick one, you cannot have both.

I still think the bible is the inspired words of God No - they depict human events. The authors declare their testimonies as true. It's that simple to figure out contracycle.That's the problem with what you are saying regarding the whole thing as metaphorical - or "picking and choosing"./ The difference between us - is that I am only taking as not literal - what I am forced to. For example - you'd say Jesus is metaphor - but the rule I stated isn't applied when dealing with what God can do - as he isn't bound by natural law. I'll repeat the rule for you from message #69 of this thread;If something is mentioned which defies the natural laws God put in place by being in place (as in Leviathan by nature - fire breathes), IF that occurence is not dealing with God's supernatural power/activity - then there's a reasonable doubt that it can be taken literally.Now - We have no choice - we have to take Jesus as true because the authors insist on their testimony, and there is no need to apply a rule because Christ being divine means he won't be "unable" for example, to walk on water. The rule "doesn't deal" with God's abilities. This is a much touted and vastly exaggerated claim, as most people via common sense can derive whether the texts are trying to tell the facts or not. INFACT I attend christian forums - and we agree about most things, concerning Christ. What we have trouble over - is only things like Genesis, which is troublesome when taken literally. SO your assertion that we "pick and choose" is not true - as I know we don't through personal experience. Most things we agree on, and only a few poetic verses cause debate amongst us. Genesis is problematic because many have taken it literally to fight a few atheistic evolutionists who use evolution against the bible...To prove my point - look at Revelation, it's just as poetic and no one cares about it that much. Erm...I still see the metaphorical as the inspired words of God. (?) But what wisdom do we claim - that you want to know about? I have some wisdom I couldn't have previously had - but I've seldom come across anyone who wants to know about it - but when I go to christian forums, to my surprise - they already "have" or "know" what I have derived from the bible, despite me reaching those conclusions without knowing there own conclusions.It is the revealed word of God - I know it cannot be A and not A, I claim it is A - and that some books are poetic and more metaphorical than others. But claiming that it is inspired, doesn't mean I am claiming it has no errors, it also doesn't mean I am claiming it is perfect, and it doesn't mean I am claiming it is all factually true. It means I am claiming that is is The inspired words of God written by man - sixty -odd different authors.Since the predicate of metaphorical is irrelevant to it being the inspired word of God - metaphor will not contradict it being inspired by God.