[Serious] A Literal Bible. Answering questions

[The Grand Nudger]

...?  Word selection is not, at all, the anachronism between a biological account of life on earth, and a biblical one.  They could have picked any word they wanted there, and it's not at all possible that any change to any one word in that huge mess of a story can salvage it with respect to biological reality.

However, if you think that could be done, I'd be very interested to see.

Ulterior motives need not be involved. Science is a tool, not an ideology. Conclusions varying around the central accepted view is normal, and I fully encourage every individual to do their own research into everything said by everyone. This is an attitude which has served me well personally. 

That's exactly what I suggested.  That it's not actually the case that a researcher telling other people that they've misinterpreted and misrepresented his own research, upon which their premise is based, can only be or is even best explained by a sophistic argument against religion.  Maybe, they just got it wrong?  

We've both obviously done some* research, which lead to me to my previous question.  You were aware that anyone looking this up would find it, correct?

To get to a real discussion though needs the ability to look through the ideologies that are claiming for various narratives, and see what everyone is trying to say. You seem like you're trying to understand, but I'm struggling to put together a decent response because it feels like I need to dive into everything, but I need to figure out specifically. Been a bit busy today, unexpectedly, not had much time to think yet.

I thought we just agreed that no ulterior motive was necessary to explain why a researcher would tell someone that they've misinterpreted and misrepresented their work?  

The reason I'm no longer an Atheist is from a deep and prolonged personal experience. I'm not speaking about one god out of many, but the one God, who can probably more easily described by the ancient Greek concept of Nous. It took me months to even put together the sudden knowing, after 20 years of considering religions a delusion. 

Well, there you go.  You had a personal experience.  Nothing to do with the debunked claims about an airburst.  

As for young Earth Creationists, it is about that simple. I picked one key example because I don't have infinite time, but words being given branches of meaning in other literature is the basis for the "Biblically Accurate" view, not the Bible itself. It's sophistry obscuring the truth, like all ideology. 

There either is or isn't some truth.  If any inconvenient reference to any inconvenient fact is going to be called sophistry - we're probably not going to have a great time together you and I.

You are correct in your criticism of religion, which is the gatekeeper, and re-interpretter of the book.

I suppose I should be more clear.  Religion isn't the gatekeeper or re-interpreter of magic book.  It's magic books cause.  The explanation for it's contents.  Consider...is it more important that jesus multiplied fish, or is the presumed message of that story more important than the narrative detail, in your opinion?  Does jesus multiplying fish tell a story about a religion..or does religion tell a story about jesus multiplying fish?

[h311inac311]

There is no slander here.

Boru

Correction; there is no argument here, you called my post drivel and refused to back your claim with anything. If you make a statement without evidence or logic then I will have no problem dismissing it without evidence or logic.

You're a big fish Boru, but how deep is the water?

[onlinebiker]

So you think the Spanish Inquisition never happened??

I don't care about the Spanish Inquisition. That was such a long time ago.

Of course... If it didn' t happen since you grew fuzz on your crotch nothing counts.......


Then Jesus doesn' t count either - because that fucker has been AWOL for 2000 years.....

[Pat Mustard]

I was aware that the site was claimed to be roundly debunked, but I never saw anything other than sophistic arguments based on mockery of religion, and using individual scientist's misinterpretations to rubbish their whole dataset, in the same way YECs rubbish everything from NASA just because of fish eye lenses in launch vehicles. 

Yeah you're not interested in honest and open debate. You're no different that the YECs you are so fond of pretending to bash.

What's your real reason for being here?

[Nay_Sayer]

Be good enough not to sign my name to your nonsensical drivel.

Boru

  "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."



Chris

There isn't a debate, You are not Boru.

-RAmen-

[Nay_Sayer]

There is no slander here.

Boru

Correction; there is no argument here, you called my post drivel and refused to back your claim with anything. If you make a statement without evidence or logic then I will have no problem dismissing it without evidence or logic.

You're a big fish Boru, but how deep is the water?

Deep enough where you would drown in 1 minute.

*popcorn_gif*

[Angrboda]

[Green Diogenes]

There seems to be a determination to miss the point, so that not even agreement can be had, as people repeat back each other's meaning in different phrasing, determined to disagree.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess that means you'll need to work on your delivery, then. As good a place as any.

[brewer]

Actually it does.

Organized Religion has never been used as a means of manipulation or control. Some cult groups have used religion to control people, but that's its own thing. Every person (who is not in a cult) has the freedom to decide what they want to believe, when presented with certain information. Choosing to follow a religion, even while not being forced into a cult, is a deep choice that many people have made to their betterment.

Please discuss your views with your psychiatrist/psychologist. Your disorder(s) are negatively impacting your view(s) of the world.

A catholic priest might like it if you shake your backside, they have lots of money. Wear lipstick!