|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2004 : 11:06:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I do, however, question the status of homosexual activity as sinful in light of the New Covenant. The only place in the Bible which condemns homosexuality as a sin is in Leviticus. All other passages which have been pointed to in arguements on this point tend to be admonitions to live a moral life. Jesus, the Christ, never directly condemns homosexual behavior.
In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus states: quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to pay for our sins. The law is there to show us what sin is. Paul writes in Romans 3:20: quote:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 11:29:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Robb:
In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus states:
quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So, tell me again why Christians do not have to keep kosher or be circumcised? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 11:38:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I do, however, question the status of homosexual activity as sinful in light of the New Covenant. The only place in the Bible which condemns homosexuality as a sin is in Leviticus. All other passages which have been pointed to in arguements on this point tend to be admonitions to live a moral life. Jesus, the Christ, never directly condemns homosexual behavior.
In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus states: quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to pay for our sins. The law is there to show us what sin is. Paul writes in Romans 3:20: quote:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
So tell me, when was the last time you made burnt offerings to the Lord? When was the last time you stoned someone for working on the sabbath?
Leviticus is considered superceded by the New Covenant by most Biblical scholars. Yet, the only place that condemns homosexuality as a sin is Leviticus.
Also,
Matthew 5:12 - 16
"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
This is a passage that you did not quote which tends to modify your quote. Is this the law? Are these the commandments that Jesus refers to? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 06/14/2004 11:46:58 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 15:06:34 [Permalink]
|
Back on topic a bit more than my last post in this thread...
A fundamentalist Christian is one who regards the Bible as true, or the innerant word of god.
Well, to use Leviticus as an example, do you think it's right to stone a man to death for working on the sabbath?
If YES, then we probably have so little in common that we should end the converation here. (not to mention that it would mean you think I should be put to death, since I work EVERY sabbath)
If NO, then you contradict the statement that the bible is the innerant word of god.
There are, literally, hundreds of examples of the moral values in the bible that most people would consider not only outdated, but outright wrong today.
How can this be if the bible is the word of god? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 19:23:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Briefly ? Moakley:
quote:
After, what I suspect, are years of christian programming it will be difficult to honestly evaluate any evidence contrary to the Truth.
Again, that is presumptuous.
We all have our personal biases. When these biased thoughts are reinforced for a number of years they are difficult to leave behind. Presumptuous, but I suspect accurate.
quote:
What feel-good thoughts?
A verbal self-congratulatory pat on the back. Hey I'm a fundamentalist christian who knows the Truth, and I am open minded. I would like to be wrong about this, but I doubt your sincerity.
quote:
As I explained above, there is nothing contradictory about believing I have found the Truth, but realizing that I, as a fallible human, may be wrong.
So the Truth that you have found cannot be wrong, but you can be because due to an indepth consideration of the available evidence (or lack of evidence) you no longer believe the Truth.
quote:
I think this is the most critical statement in this post ? If what I take as the Truth is not the Truth ? the problem is not with the Truth, it is with me.
Trust yourself. The problem is not with you. This Truth is not valid and not worthy of someone with your potential.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 22:41:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Dr. Mabuse:
First, I like your motorcycle.
Thanks! I love it. It's a perfect all-around bike. Good torque even at lower midrange revs (good for cruising with my babe), and a hundred HP at 8000revs (and beyond) and short wheel base for fast curvy roads.
quote:
Second:
quote:
Do you look down your noses at them? Of course you do!
Does that effect how you treat that person? It shouldn't. But it does.
I do not presume to know more about you than you do, and I expect the same in return. I have said I do not look down on others who partake in what I classify as “sinful behaviors.” If you can't take my own word about myself, then obviously we won't get anywhere.
My fault... I didn't make clear that I meant 'you' as in Christians claiming or pretending to be your kind of definition of fundamentalist.
quote:
quote:
Do you mean Evolution-chauvinism attacks Christianity, or evolution attacks Christianity?
And again the comma-ambiguity rears its ugly head. My apologies for a truly ambiguous statement. I meant that scientific chauvinism attacks Creationism and scientific chauvinism attacks Evolution.
This is a position I can't remember having encountered before. Could you please explain how you think scientific chauvinism attacks Evolution?
quote:
quote:
This does not describe the kind of people we, or at least I, classify as Fundie(tm).
Again, that is the whole purpose of this discussion. I believe you have misclassified fundamentalists.
I propose that there are two kinds of fundamentalists. The ones you are describing, which we could call live and let live fundamentalists, the zen type passive loving kind of fundamentalists. The ones we designate "Fundies(tm)" are the ones that don't hesitate to tell us that we will burn in hell for "believing in Evilution". Well, having the kind of attributes Valiant Dancer put forth as examples.
quote:
I think this is the most critical statement in this post – If what I take as the Truth is not the Truth – the problem is not with the Truth, it is with me.
I would dare say that this is close to my position. But I freely admit that I don't know The Whole Truth. Only that I'm learning to use the tool which will help me find the truth about things around me. It is called science.
quote:
I am personally |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 00:42:53 [Permalink]
|
Maverick,
I must apologize that due to the excessive “nit-picking” of incidentals and your general ad hominem style of discussion, I must, in the interest of time, disregard your posts.
Filthy,
quote:
I agree that Creation/Evolution "attacks" (I think you missed a word in the above quote. Shouldn't it read. "Creation chauvinism attacks Evolution?") are ridiculous, but they are all too common.
I did mean it the way I wrote it – let me clarify. When you read literature from creation scientists (and yes, I do believe there are creation scientists) or evolutionists, you too-frequently come across interesting statements such as these:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Richard Dawkins – from a book review in New York Times)
That is what I mean by “scientific chauvinism” - Personally attacking others for not believing what you (general “you”) believe - and of course both sides are guilty of
it.
quote:
Our new friend verso has stated that he takes the Bible literally, which is ok as long as one believes that, "those data are flawed." But if one regards the Bible as, I dunno, a metaphore perhaps, of the Story of Creation, one would have no problems accepting the ToE. It would in no way threaten their beliefs.
A thought that has been repeated…
Dave:
quote:
Why would you become agnostic? The only thing that evolutionary theory contradicts is a literal interpretation of Genesis (which is an old Jewish story, anyway). Evolutionary theory doesn't speak to any other substantive part of the Bible, nor to the existence (or non-existence) of a deity.
I was a bit quick in that statement. Agnostic probably not. But I do indeed take Genesis literally. I take the entire Bible literally. And if Genesis “fails,” then obviously my Bible-based faith is in trouble. Why do I take it literally? With the Bible, it is all or nothing. If I open the door to figurative interpretation in one area – I must open that door in all areas. Then, obviously, the Bible is useless as a tool for meaningful investigation.
quote:
And if your faith is so rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis that were it to be shown to be wrong, you would lose your faith in God, it says to me that you don't have faith in God, anyway, but only in a book. That, it seems to me, is a far cry from the truly fundamental principles of Christianity.
My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part… by a book. A book that is more than just a book – it is God's word.
Tangent of relevant interest: It must be God's word (written through direct inspiration) or it is nothing at all, because it itself claims to be God's word.
What I'm saying is similar to the argument that Jesus could not have been simply a good teacher, a prophet, or anything but what he claimed to be. Why? If he was besides what he claimed to be, then he would have been a pathological liar. In other words – either he was God's Son, or he was a raving lunatic – either or. Either the Bible is God's word, or it's a bo |
| Edited by - verso on 06/16/2004 00:48:24 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 01:32:29 [Permalink]
|
| If you don't have answers for my questions, then just say so. What ad hominen attacks are you talking about, anyway? Please specify, if you're capable of it. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 04:33:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I did mean it the way I wrote it – let me clarify. When you read literature from creation scientists (and yes, I do believe there are creation scientists) or evolutionists, you too-frequently come across interesting statements such as these:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Richard Dawkins – from a book review in New York Times)
That is what I mean by “scientific chauvinism” - Personally attacking others for not believing what you (general “you”) believe - and of course both sides are guilty of
it.
B'rer Dawkins is pretty raspy, isn't he? Perhaps it comes from being constantly under attack by Creationists world wide. But they ain't debunked him yet and I'll put down hard money that they never will.
You have stated that there are 'creation scientists'. I would like to know what fields of research they are working in and in which peer-reviewed journals are publishing.
By the way, the key phrase here is: 'peer review'. Allow me to explain.
Peer review is a sort of incestious cannabilism that scientists must submit to to get their work accepted by the scientofoc community. Dr. A performes an experiment/makes a discovery/whatever. He submits his findings for publication in Nature or Science, or Copeia, or another journal. He then finds himself quickly surrounded by others in the field, or related fields, studying those findings and trying to duplicate them. It is about as cut-throat as you can get without drawing blood, and if those findings are verified, the journal publishes and Dr. A recieves grudging congratulations and throws a party. Then, he gets to write books about it that are read by laymen interested in his field.
I have yet to see peer-reviewed, creationist work published anywhere (peer review at AiG or ICR ain't peer review; it's self congratulation). Have I been missing something?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 05:27:01 [Permalink]
|
Hi verso!
quote:
Originally posted by verso
(and yes, I do believe there are creation scientists)
How do they practice creation science?
Can you give us a example of someone you considers a creation scientist?
quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Richard Dawkins from a book review in New York Times)
That is what I mean by scientific chauvinism - Personally attacking others for not believing what you (general you) believe - and of course both sides are guilty of it.
All people are ignorant of some things. If you claim not to believe in evolution, you
are ignorant of this subject, which is perfectly ok, we can't all know everything.
But if you claim that evolution is false without checking the evidence, I'm afraid that you are stupid, insane or wicked.
quote:
My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part? by a book. A book that is more than just a book ? it is God?s word.
Tangent of relevant interest: It must be God?s word (written through direct inspiration) or it is nothing at all, because it itself claims to be God?s word.
Couldn't some parts be Gods word and others added by man?
quote:
It also follows that as scientists who disagree are usually considered non-scientists,
This is not true. Scientists can be wrong and pseudo-scientists can some times be right. A scientist use the scientific method.
quote:
But evolution is a different animal. Maybe because of the religious and political ties; I don't know. What I do know is that there are very few fields in sciene where scientists so passionately disagree.
Though you can find passionate disagreement in the field of evolutionary biology, as in most other fields of science, disagreement is not about if evolution occurs.
You have been miss informed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 07:33:38 [Permalink]
|
Allow me to state yet again, as I've done ad nauseum it seems, that the Theory of Evolution is not a belief system and it is not at all in doubt in any field of legitiment science. The only parts that can be argued about, often heatedly, are the driving forces of it. Dr. Gould's Puntuated Equalibreum Hypothosis, For example. All is not clearly understood, but that changes nothing. Evolution happens; evolution is fact. Even a casual browse through TO will confirm this bold statement. Talk Origins backs their claims up with a lot of peer-reviewed, outside references from scientists who have dedicated their lives to increasing our knowledge of the world we live in.
So, can a Christian also be an evolutionary biologist? Sure, why not? As can a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddist, and a worshiper of Quetzacoatle. All they have to do is not let their faith blind them to the evidence.
And herein lies the rub, for Christians, Jews, and Muslims at any rate: the Book of Genesis.
The Book of Genesis contains some of the most fantastical stories and they are in direct opposition to the geological record. You cannot take that book literally and still accept the evidence presented first hand.
Garden of Eden complete with dinosaurs? Hardly. A world-wide flood to some 15 cubits over the highest hills? It is not found in the Geological Column and as for a wooden barge over 450 feet long, built with Bronze Age technology -- pu-lease! Age of earth only some 6 to 10 thousand years old? In another thread, the Second Verlch Hootenanny as I recall, I covered radiometric dating. I can do it again here if asked, but it's a long one and I'm a tad lazyish today.
Genesis is a cracking good read, but it ain't science; can't replace science. It is myth, lore and ledgend combined to help ancient peoples understand the world that they knew and lived in. It's rather beautiful work really, but I sometimes wonder if it was ever intended to be taken as the literal truth by those who first told it upon a winter's evening.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 09:16:20 [Permalink]
|
Verso, I'll reply to some of your points. I think you do have some nice input here (and you're most certainly a valueble change after Verlch).
quote:
Originally posted by verso
I did mean it the way I wrote it – let me clarify. When you read literature from creation scientists (and yes, I do believe there are creation scientists) or evolutionists, you too-frequently come across interesting statements such as these:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Richard Dawkins – from a book review in New York Times)
That is what I mean by “scientific chauvinism” - Personally attacking others for not believing what you (general “you”) believe - and of course both sides are guilty of it.
Indeed, Dawkins has sometimes done some pretty harsh statements against creationists. However, people like our friend Verlch or people like Kent Hovind are often the kind of people I run into when discussing evolution. I can imagine Dawkins can get very irritated after having to rebut the next misrepresentation of his ideas, and IMHO, this is what often is done by creationists. But I hope we'll have some discussions about that at a later point. I, for one, am looking forward to it, since to me, you seem to be someone who actually studies what he is talking about.
quote:
I was a bit quick in that statement. Agnostic probably not. But I do indeed take Genesis literally. I take the entire Bible literally. And if Genesis “fails,” then obviously my Bible-based faith is in trouble. Why do I take it literally? With the Bible, it is all or nothing. If I open the door to figurative interpretation in one area – I must open that door in all areas. Then, obviously, the Bible is useless as a tool for meaningful investigation.
My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part… by a book. A book that is more than just a book – it is God's word.
Tangent of relevant interest: It must be God's word (written through direct inspiration) or it is nothing at all, because it itself claims to be God's word.
What I'm saying is similar to the argument that Jesus could not have been simply a good teacher, a prophet, or anything but what he claimed to be. Why? If he was besides what he claimed to be, then he would have been a pathological liar. In other words – either he was God's Son, or he was a raving lunatic – either or. Either the Bible is God's word, or it's a book of lies. (End of tangent)
I would disagree, but then I'm of course agnostic. However, there's a whole lot of christianity that would also disagree with you. Yes, if you say you don't take Genesis literally, this forces you to investigate the rest of the bible to see what is literally true and what metaphorically. Nobody said it was easy.
However, the key line here would be to understand that the bible is the word of God, however it is inspired by God, not literally dictated, and hence it is colored by the experiences and values of the people who wrote the bible. I've met quite a few liberal christians who think taking the bible as literally true is equal to worshipping the bible as an idol, in stead of worshipping God.
Also, you're already interpreting some texts, like texts that say the sun revolves around the earth in stead of vice versa. You fit this idea in your worldview, in stead of really taking the bible literally.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 06/16/2004 12:02:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 10:17:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part… by a book. A book that is more than just a book – it is God's word.
Prove it.
Demonstrate that the bible is The Word of God.
If you are actually saying that you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible claims it is then we are probably never going to be able to conduct a meaningfull dialogue. The same goes if you make this claim becauseother people told you it's true.
If you cannot see the huge gaping flaw in that type of reasoning, there is nothing further to say. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 11:56:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part… by a book. A book that is more than just a book – it is God's word.
Prove it.
Demonstrate that the bible is The Word of God.
If you are actually saying that you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible claims it is then we are probably never going to be able to conduct a meaningfull dialogue. The same goes if you make this claim becauseother people told you it's true.
If you cannot see the huge gaping flaw in that type of reasoning, there is nothing further to say.
Oooo. Are we going to play "Name that Logical Fallacy"? I'll take Circular Reasoning for $100, Dude. :) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 12:06:51 [Permalink]
|
verso wrote:quote:
My faith is not blind. It is not proven (by definition), but it is supported. Supported in large part... by a book. A book that is more than just a book - it is God's word.
Tangent of relevant interest: It must be God's word (written through direct inspiration) or it is nothing at all, because it itself claims to be God's word.
What I'm saying is similar to the argument that Jesus could not have been simply a good teacher, a prophet, or anything but what he claimed to be. Why? If he was besides what he claimed to be, then he would have been a pathological liar. In other words - either he was God's Son, or he was a raving lunatic - either or. Either the Bible is God's word, or it's a book of lies. (End of tangent)
The tangent is the important part. You have created a false dichotomy. In reality, Jesus was (A) God's Son, (B) a lunatic, (C) a largely-fictional character or (D) some other possibility I haven't considered. In reality, the Bible is (A) the Word of God, (B) fiction, (C) a tool of political and/or social change or (D) some other possibility I haven't considered.
Or, just for a moment, entertain for me the thought that the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish culture as the writers of the times knew it, and that because the New Testament wasn't written until decades after the death of Jesus, there was plenty of time for him to become mythologized. Such ideas do not conflict with the existence of a God such as is written about in the Bible, and the Bible's claims to be the Word of God can be understood to be the work of the authors, and not God. Similarly, Jesus' claims to be the Son of God can be understood to be the work of the NT authors, and Jesus himself then need be neither deity nor crazed.
Besides, where in the Bible does it claim to be "a tool for meaningful investigation?" I don't believe it does, and I also don't believe that, for example, a single history book is "a tool for meaningful investigation." Or the Code of Virginia, for that matter (since the Bible is both history and legal text).
On the other hand, the Bible can be a useful tool for spiritual investigation, I'm sure. But I am equally sure that there is no verse in which God claims that the entirety of the Bible is a useful tool for scientific investigation.quote:
...and that by simply saying - I don't think it is that simple. First of all, scientists do disagree, but you refer to the majority of scientists that disagree as pseudo scientists (i.e. creationist). That is a bit circular; all of the scientists agree because only the scientists who agree are considered by you to be real scientists. I disagree with your implicit premise that creationists are not scientists. That is (indirectly) what you are trying to demonstrate to me.
Not at all. Let me quote myself, and put in bold the important words:So, the "money and fame" motivator says that scientists should disagree about a subject if it is at all controversial. Yet professional biologists agree that evolution is true. They base their work upon it, and have nothing to gain by continuing with a sham (if evolution were false). I am not now, and have never, stated that "all of the scientists" agree, only that professional biologists agree. There are, the last time I saw an article about it, precisely zero professional, working biologists who dispute the fact of evolution. There are no working biologists among the "big names" in creation "science."
(There is one with a degree in b |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
