(March 21, 2012 at 11:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Let this be done as King Darius commanded.
An interesting thing for a Zoroastrian king like Darius to command, eh Pap?
You got it.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
Evolution
|
(March 21, 2012 at 11:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Let this be done as King Darius commanded. You got it.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
RE: Evolution
March 21, 2012 at 11:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2012 at 11:56 pm by Drich.)
(March 21, 2012 at 8:49 pm)mediamogul Wrote: I do think that Darwinian human evolution rules out the biblical account of the creation of man and animals. One cannot reconcile the two: the Genesis account of creation and the Darwinian accounts of human evolution cannot be simultanaously true. They are not non-overlapping magisteria (as in they do not make mutually exclusive claims). Genesis makes definite claims about the origin of the earth and it's inhabitants which contradict the claims of natural evolution.How so please explain in detail Quote:If one opts for a "creative reinterpretation of scripture" to make it fit with the scientific evidence then that opens the flood gates because if the bible is not to be read as a factual account of events then one has no grounds for dismissing most interpretations of scripture (the Manson account of Revelation is a famous one).Absolutely not true. Because the understanding of the Genesis account and the written recorded of the account in Genesis, are two completely different things. If one simple adheres to what is written on the pages of Genesis then you can see there aren't any confining time lines. It is only when one adheres to traditional "religious views" rather than what is on page does the two accounts of orgins conflict. Quote:One could interpret all the divinity out of Jesus, state that "god" was merely an anthropomorphic projection onto the laws of nature, and that prayer was really intended to lift the spirits of the supplicant and not to be actually be fulfilled. hey, if we are just making assertions now based on our ink blot of a book, why not? If none of it is fact then it all becomes an ink blot test where one is free to read into it whatever one desires. The interpretations then conform to some internal standard of the person reading and interpreting, as in it is their morality, worldview, and feelings that are being used as the standard NOT the book itself. Which leads to the final conclusion, if we are just using our own internal moral compass when reading the book why not just ditch the book and apply our moral compass directly to the world?lol seriously? Do you need me to deconstruct this arguement or can you peice what i am going to say from my last paragraph? Quote:At least the fundamentalists have the guts to make the claims that their book actually does instead of molding it to fit their or their culture's values.You have mislabeled my work. I have not changed one single blessed word. The bible and the genesis account still works exactly as it was written. The only thing I have changed is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of creation by taking out all of the speculation and filler material that is not written on page and inserted all of the undeniable evidence contain in the fossil record. and along the way i inadvertently answered alot of other paradoxes in the R/C understanding of Creation contains. (March 21, 2012 at 10:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:So going to back to the original language in which the text was written for clarity is "bending the text???" show me RE: Evolution
March 22, 2012 at 12:11 am
(This post was last modified: March 22, 2012 at 12:12 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Still writing in more fantasy? You keep railing against Catholicism like anyone gives a shit.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(March 21, 2012 at 11:55 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='mediamogul' pid='259348' dateline='1332377376']How so please explain in detail Quote:If one opts for a "creative reinterpretation of scripture" to make it fit with the scientific evidence then that opens the flood gates because if the bible is not to be read as a factual account of events then one has no grounds for dismissing most interpretations of scripture (the Manson account of Revelation is a famous one).Absolutely not true. Because the understanding of the Genesis account and the written recorded of the account in Genesis, are two completely different things. If one simple adheres to what is written on the pages of Genesis then you can see there aren't any confining time lines. It is only when one adheres to traditional "religious views" rather than what is on page does the two accounts of orgins conflict. Quote:One could interpret all the divinity out of Jesus, state that "god" was merely an anthropomorphic projection onto the laws of nature, and that prayer was really intended to lift the spirits of the supplicant and not to be actually be fulfilled. hey, if we are just making assertions now based on our ink blot of a book, why not? If none of it is fact then it all becomes an ink blot test where one is free to read into it whatever one desires. The interpretations then conform to some internal standard of the person reading and interpreting, as in it is their morality, worldview, and feelings that are being used as the standard NOT the book itself. Which leads to the final conclusion, if we are just using our own internal moral compass when reading the book why not just ditch the book and apply our moral compass directly to the world?lol seriously? Do you need me to deconstruct this arguement or can you peice what i am going to say from my last paragraph? Quote:At least the fundamentalists have the guts to make the claims that their book actually does instead of molding it to fit their or their culture's values.You have mislabeled my work. I have not changed one single blessed word. The bible and the genesis account still works exactly as it was written. The only thing I have changed is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of creation by taking out all of the speculation and filler material that is not written on page and inserted all of the undeniable evidence contain in the fossil record. and along the way i inadvertently answered alot of other paradoxes in the R/C understanding of Creation contains. My friend, not everything is about you. This is one of those instances.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"All thinking men are atheists." -Ernest Hemmingway "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire Quote:show me Child's play. Quote:Main article: Septuagint manuscripts
Wow, see how easy it is to present evidence when asked for it.
Imagine that.
Like I said....child's play.
(March 21, 2012 at 10:53 pm)Drich Wrote:
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside? The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm RE: Evolution
March 22, 2012 at 8:17 am
(This post was last modified: March 22, 2012 at 8:24 am by Phil.)
(March 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Jews recognizing polytheistic gods centuries after Moses. There was a Moses? (March 21, 2012 at 11:55 pm)Drich Wrote: You have mislabeled my work. You are a lying moron if you continue to claim this is "your work" or "your argument." I already posted the wikipedia page on gap creationism which is exactly what you are claiming. It seems that you are living in the 19th century since you think this is a valid form of creationism. Personally, I think your a fucking retard. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|