Intelligent Design can not be taught in Pa. schools

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex, Dec 20, 2005.

Page 6 of 13
  1. saltyone

    saltyone So Mote It Be

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,647
    Likes Received:
    483
    Depends on what you consider recently. I personally do not believe that the earth is millions of years old. I believe it is only several thousand years old. Unlike Bengal Buddy, I take the Bible and it's teachings literally.
     
    saltyone, Dec 22, 2005
    #51
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    yunno what would be awesome, when they make computers that could sort of think, yunno really advanced computers that are super smart, you could program them to pray on your behalf. and since they never get tired, you could preset them with your prayers, and run them 24/7. and then when they get more advanced, you could turn up the speed so they pray really fast. it might sound weird speeded up like the chipmunks or whatever, but god doesnt give a damn.
     
    martin, Dec 22, 2005
    #52
  3. saltyone

    saltyone So Mote It Be

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,647
    Likes Received:
    483
    The more I read about I.D. the less I like it. As a matter of fact, I can now say that I completely disagree with it. Years ago, when I had way too much time on my hands, I stumbled on a book by some guy that talked about there being three earths. I read the book and my young impressionable mind actually started buying the theory. It explained how there could be a creator and still have an evolutionary process. If I remember right the author was Catholic. Anyway, this just seemed like the greatest idea to me then. It kept God centered but still followed, in a weird kinda way, what we were being taught in school.

    There is but one problem with this theory and this was pointed out to me later on. To me the Bible is not something for us to just cut and paste from. Just because we cannot explain something in it does not give us the right to just explain it off as figurative speech. If that was the case how could any of it be taken seriously? I.D. sounds a lot like that theory to me. It's making a comprise in order to please science. It is saying that in this case the Bible doesn't mean exactly what it says and because science must rule, here is what we think really happened. For people like myself that believe the Bible to be wholly accurate, I.D. just cannot fit.
     
    saltyone, Dec 22, 2005
    #53
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That article is so full of holes that is is funny. The author has no concept of standard deviation nor does he understand that contaminated samples can produce erratic results. He uses these erratic observations on which to base his conclusions, of course, not the far greater number of very accurate observations.

    His conclusion is simply preposterous.

    "At the end we shall conclude that these dating methods are so unreliable that ultimately rocks and fossils cannot be dated by these, thus evolutionists must rely solely on theory."

    This totally ignores the fact that geologic time has been calculated on many factors besides radiometric dating. It had in fact been worked out in the 19th century, well before radiometry. Modern methods have only confirmed this. Incidently there is no such thing as an evolutionist.

    Just a few others:

    "Since evolution has not been observed in our time and it has not been observed in the past either, the only hope remaining for evolutionists is the availability of unimaginably long periods of time."

    Nonsense. Evolution has been observed in our time. It is observed countless times in the fossil record. Take the Dog, for instance. Every species of dog has evolved from the wolf in the last 12,000 years, mostly from selective breeding by humans. National Geographic had a great article on it. Wolf to Woof: The Evolution of Dogs

    "mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old"

    Uhhh, mortar is made from limestone (which can be extremely old) that has been burned in a fire (introducing carbon which contaminates the sample). Radiocarbon dating of mortar will never give you the date the mortar was made. It gives you an erroneous date from the contamination of very old carboniferous rock with very new carbon from the soot of firing the lime.

    Radiometric dating is just one of many ways to study the ages of rocks. Much more important are the principles of superposition and the law of faunal succession. Do a googlesearch on how geologists date rocks and learn something new.
     
    red55, Dec 22, 2005
    #54
  5. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    That article was great. It's like a 4 year old with an agenda developed the conclusions.

    The point noted by Red below though, is the absolute highlight of that scholarly gem. :rofl:

     
    NoLimitMD, Dec 22, 2005
    #55
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Then how do you deal with the many contradictions that are in the scriptures? The gospel of Mark says that Jesus was anguished upon the cross and his last words were "God, Why have you forsaken me? Yet Luke portrays a stoic Jesus who calmly assured the thief that he would soon join him in heaven and his last words were "Father, into your hands, I commit my spirit".

    Even more troubling with a literal acceptance of the Bible is the many mistranslations through the centuries. "Thou shalt not kill" is the most overt mistranslation in the Old testament. Ancient Hebrew only had about 8,000 words as opposed to modern English with over 120,000 words. It was difficult to express nuances without placing a word in context, especially in an oral tradition. They just didn't have the words for executions, battle deaths, suicides, homicides, fratricides, etc. But clearly the commandment was intended to mean "thou shalt not murder". The original Hebrew of the sixth commandment is lo tirtsach. Tirtsach can mean to break in pieces, kill or murder. Lo is the Hebrew negative.

    After all, what did Moses do when he came down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments and found the Israelites worshipping an idol? He had 3,000 of them killed! In fact, in the first five books of the bible, death by stoning is prescribed for breaking any of the first 7 commandments except possibly the second. Surely the commandment did not include killing by execution.

    David and Solomon were beloved of God yet they slew "thousands and ten-thousands" in battle. Surely the commandment did not include killing in battle.

    Ancient Hebrews killed animals for offerings and God even once asked Abraham for a human sacrifice. Surely the commandment did not include killing for offerings.

    "Thou shalt not murder", while not traditional in the King James Version, is actually the proper translation of the Sixth Commandment. It just did not survive multiple translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English unscathed.

    Also consider this. I'm sure you accept that Jesus often taught his new morality through the use of parables . . . fictional stories designed to get a message across to an illiterate people accustomed to an oral tradition.

    Faith does not have to be literally precise or historically accurate to get it's message across. It is not a big stretch to see that much of the old testament and the gospels themselves may be parabolic as well.

    And what does it matter since the message is the important thing?

    The image of a serpent giving Eve an apple is a striking symbol and we remember it through millenia of oral tradition. But the message is that of evil temping Eve with sin. THIS is what we are to learn from the story, not the literal account of Eve accepting an apple from a snake. The Bible is the most remarkable piece of literature in the history of mankind, but it is not neccessary to believe it literally to enjoy its teachings.
     
    red55, Dec 22, 2005
    #56
  7. saltyone

    saltyone So Mote It Be

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,647
    Likes Received:
    483
    Red, none of your arguments weaken my belief. Actually, some of them are quite funny.

    You talk like I don't understand that the Bible has been translated many times. You also make a mistake thinking that I don't realize what "Thou shalt not kill" means. I spent almost 10 years in the Marine Corps infantry. Do you really think that doesn't come up from time to time.

    As far as the Gospels go, each one is understood to be that individuals account of what took place. There is a reason they are all included in the New Testament. By having 4 accounts, we receive a more broad depiction of what took place. Each from a different perspective. That is a gift, not something to doubt the Bible over.

    You insult my intelligence and a lot of other peoples by making your animal sacrifice argument. That's just silly.

    For myself and millions of others, yes it does and yes it would be a stretch.

    I've already answered that question. Your post is a good example of why it matters. If it were not so then you and everyone else could just pick and chose what to take serious and anything you didn't agree with could just be tossed aside as not being meaningful

    Again red, that is your opinion. It is not shared by myself. I don't have all of the answers. I was not meant to have them either. Remember how satan tempted eve. He said that by eating the fruit from the tree of life she would poses all of the knowledge of God. That he said would make her all powerful and she would no longer need to kneel to God since she would be on the same level as God. Sometimes red, knowledge or the pursuit thereof can be evil. Now, I know that statement is a kick in the face to someone of your profession so I want to add that not all knowledge is evil. By no means do I mean that. Some things we are not meant to know. Why? Only God knows the answer to that.
     
    saltyone, Dec 22, 2005
    #57
  8. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    So you honestly believe there was a snake that handed an apple from a tree of knowledge and then Eve physically ate the apple? [NOTE: I'm NOT being sarcastic or condescending.]

    I've always thought that many of the stories of the Bible were created and passed along so as to be noteworthy enough and stand the test of time well enough to survive a primitive communication system (oral stories only.) I agree with Red though, in that the message of each story is what is critical, not the exact facts of it. That's not taking anything out of context or picking and choosing. Rather, in my mind, it lends additional credence and understanding for what is a truly remarkable and miraculous Book of God's word and history.
     
    NoLimitMD, Dec 22, 2005
    #58
  9. saltyone

    saltyone So Mote It Be

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,647
    Likes Received:
    483
    Yes, I do believe that satan took the form of a serpent and tempted Eve with the fruit of the tree. Yes, I do believe that Eve then seduced Adam into eating of the fruit also. Because of this, I believe that God vanquished both Adam and Eve from the Garden and cursed the serpent by forcing it to crawl on its belly below Gods other creations. I believe that God placed an Angel to guard the entrance to the Garden and I believe that the site of the Garden is a physical location somewhere on earth that no man may ever enter.

    This is a condensed verson of what I believe when it comes to Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.
     
    saltyone, Dec 22, 2005
    #59
  10. Bengal Buddy

    Bengal Buddy Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    520
    I hope you are joking about the age of the earth being just a few thousand years old. The earth is approximately 4 billion years old and that is not a theory - it is a fact. We have found rocks on this planet that date close to that.

    The prbblem of taking the Bible too literally is that you run into a lot of problems that cannot be easily explained. For example, where did the daughter-in-laws of Adam and Eve come from? Certainly the genealogy of Christ listed in the New Testament cannont be taken literally. Actually, in the 19th century one minister did exactly that determined that the earth, based his calculations, was 4,000 years old. Now we know it is billions of years old. We also know that it took a lot longer than 7 days for the universe to come into being. God is the author of all truth - both scriptual and scientific. Therefore, no two truths can contradict themselves because God cannont contradict Himself. This is what led to St. Augustine saying that if known facts contradict our understanding of the Bible, then we need to re-think our understanding of the Bible. The Bible is multivalient. It has different levels of meaning, and as Christians it is our responsibility to study the Bible in all its aspects (textual criticism, literary criticism, etc) to better understand it so we can better apply it to modern life. To understand what the Bible is, we have to have an understand of what it is not. It is not history (although there is some history in it) and it is not science. The Bible is the Word of God written in the words of men - men who brought to the task their own points of view, their own individual theologies, their own purposes, their own experiences and their own limitations. The Bible was never meant by its human authors to be the definative and sole reservoir of all human truth. It was, is and always will be the normative document of spiritual life. But it is not a science book and to try to make it what it is not only serves to trivialize it. When we try to make it what it is not, we end up focusing not on what God is trying to tell us, but on what we are trying to tell each other. Instead of focusing on God, we focus on ourselves and our message supercedes God's.
     
    Bengal Buddy, Dec 22, 2005
    #60
Page 6 of 13

Share This Page