Evolution/creation 2

[Tobie]

Drich, religious thought can never be free thought, as religious thinking will always be constrained by the idea that god(s) exist.

[Drich]

As i have said at least 10 dozen times in nearly 100 pages of dialog my account does not change the orginal in any way shape or form.
The orginal speaks of the events inside of the garden and does not speak of an time line outside of the literal creation account.

what is not right is your understanding of traditional Hebrew accounts/story telling.

We've had this discussion before. Jews then did not give a straight chronological account of an event. They started with an over view from start to completion and then went back and filled in the details the over view did not include.

And may I ask who was there to witness all of this?

Moses was shown these events and recorded them (He wrote the Pentateuch the first five books of the OT)

---

I think no matter what one believes it all comes down to a matter of faith. Because no one truly knows what happened. I know what the bible says and I know what science say as of 1993 plus or minus a few dozen documentries since then, and I can honestly say I do not know what happened, nor am I persumptious enough to claim absolute knoweledge on events that happened a long time before anyone could possiably and absolutly know.

So, one thing says that, with literally no scientific evidence to back it up. One thing says this, with tons of scientific evidence that converge upon this theory, and the two are equal to you? Is that what you're saying?

Science doesn't just assert things, Drich. It follows the best available evidence. The Big Bang theory is currently the best explanation we have (although I've recently heard of an interesting other theory that is apparently well evidenced, also - watch this space). You can't just equate it to a storybook that was literally fucking made up.

Faith in facts is still faith. 'Facts' Change all of the time, the faith one has in ever changing Facts, is the his current understanding/configuration of facts is the correct one.

[Tobie]

Faith in facts is still faith. 'Facts' Change all of the time, the faith one has in ever changing Facts, is the his current understanding/configuration of facts is the correct one.

Most scientists don't believe that modern science is correct. They know that it is a reasonably good model of reality, and use it as such until something happens in reality that doesn't fit the theory. No faith involved, or needed. Any scientist who believes that their current understanding of science is correct should be struck off. If you believe you have it right, what motivation do you have to seek new ideas, which is one of the core tenets of science?

[ElDinero]

Faith in facts is still faith. 'Facts' Change all of the time, the faith one has in ever changing Facts, is the his current understanding/configuration of facts is the correct one.

I never once used the word 'facts'. Why are you even bringing this up? Don't quote my post and then respond to a point I never made, dolt. Try again. Address my argument, or concede the issue.

[Drich]

Ah, I see, it's scorched earth time. After having this gibberish criticized from literally every angle you feel the need to throw your hands in the air and say "meh, it's all the same, it's all faith"

Guess what, nope. Sound your retreat into inanity some other way, some way that doesn't insult our intelligence or your own. If you were going to default to faith as an endgame you could have saved yourself the trouble of waffling around about things like the fossil record and evolution in the first place. Here's the real kicker though, assume for a moment you weren't horrendously wrong, your excuse here is garbage. Why? Because in admitting that you don't know (and, for some hilarious reason insinuating that it could not be known) you reduced what was once rambling gibberish into a rambling appeal to ignorance - and it's still gibberish.

The only interesting thing you posted in this response was that your faith hangs on neither account. Of course it doesn't. Your faith doesn't hang on any account Drich, which is what I've been trying to express to you in just about every thread you've made since joining. Are we going to drop the "biblically based faith" bullshit in light of this? No, of course not.

What do you understand "Biblically based faith" to mean? The way you have used it in your scorched rant you seem to be missed informed as to it's actual meaning. you have since taken this red herring and built a falacious arguement suggesting that a Biblical based theology is a theology or denomination unto itself. (meaning there are absolutes and rules to follow when flying this flag) Then you attack and 'scorch' the straw man you have built. It is easy to 'scorch the earth' so long as you 'scorch it' with in the boundries of a camp fire ring you have built for yourself.
If you want to make an honest run at biblically based theology then you need to take into account that it can and does encompass ALL Jesus Christ centered Religions that teach that He died as an attonement for sin and was resurrected on the 3rd day.

We are only responsiable for what it is we have been given. I do not need an explaination of orgins, because I am content with "God did it." whether the 7 days be minutes, months or milliena It makes no difference to me. why? Because not matter the actual truth it all boils down to "God did it."
After all Adam and Eve weren't new borns when God created them, so why should we think the earth was what we think of as 'new?' again this is enough for me, and my faith does not hang on what I need to be true eitherway. Whether the earth is 6000 years old or 600 trillion years old, I don't care. Why? Because only a fool speaks in absolutes when none are to be had. to say "I truly don't know what or how our orgins happened." Is the only absolute truth any of us can ever have. Which I am ok with, but 'others' are not, and I can respect that. So it is my task to help people like that reconsile what it is they think they 'need' to know.

---

Faith in facts is still faith. 'Facts' Change all of the time, the faith one has in ever changing Facts, is the his current understanding/configuration of facts is the correct one.

I never once used the word 'facts'. Why are you even bringing this up? Don't quote my post and then respond to a point I never made, dolt.

Obstinate? or simply ignorant to the fact that "Scientific evidence" (A term which you did use) is based in what are known in the 'scientific community' as FACTS!

Try again. Address my argument, or concede the issue.

This is only your second post to me and you are already circling the bowl! This 'demand' is poorly conceived widely used exit strategy one generally reserves as a last ditch effort to retreat from a topic and try and remain 'on top.' But I see here you have decided to lead with your exit strategy instead!

[The Grand Nudger]

Goddidit™?

Deep cover POE.

[Reforged]

[ElDinero]

Obstinate? or simply ignorant to the fact that "Scientific evidence" (A term which you did use) is based in what are known in the 'scientific community' as FACTS!

No it isn't. Here you betray your lack of knowledge of science or the scientific method. I'm not going to have an argument about science if you don't even know what it is, any more than I'd have an argument about South Park with someone who didn't own a TV. Shape up, and get a clue about what science is.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL......missed these little gems

Moses was shown these events and recorded them (He wrote the Pentateuch the first five books of the OT)

No, he wasn't, and no, he didn't.

Faith in facts is still faith. 'Facts' Change all of the time, the faith one has in ever changing Facts, is the his current understanding/configuration of facts is the correct one.

With facts one does not require faith. No one has to believe in a fact. Facts don't change, we do (very often) consider something a fact when it is not - when that gets ferreted out, the body of knowledge we have about the subject has to give way. This is a strength, not a weakness. This means that you won't find me ten years from now (let alone a couple thousand) arguing about how a talking snake tricked two people out of a playground and into a den of monkey-men....

[FallentoReason]

So Drich, what you're saying is that you can be selective about what you hold to be true in the Bible?? So far your explanation for creation has been nothing but messy and now you say none of it matters anyways? How is it wise to have faith in any of it then?

The mind amazes me sometimes.