The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Out of interest, what would those fruits be? What are we able to do, technologically, with the knowledge gained from ID, that we cannot do with knowledge gained from evolutionary theory? If we accept ID, what can we do that we weren't able to do before?

The fruits of ID research is being applied in everything from forensic science (to differentiate intelligent activity from non-intelligently directed activity ... and on into things like SETI in order to define what would prove that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the Universe.

Are you thinking of following the Agnostic trend ... to start studying ID?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What. The. Feck.

It was a 'tongue in cheek' comment ... based on the reverse of the word love in the start of word Evolution.:)

Anyway, do you love yourself ?... just asking.:)

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

The test protocols that SETI use to identify extra-terrestrial life signals are based on the principle that such life will generate Intelligently Designed signals.

... and forensic science is based on unambiguously identifying ID activity by potential suspects ... and linking this activity to crime scenes.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

But what did you mean when you said:
evolution may not allow you to love yourself!!!

It was a joke ... based on the fact that the word Evolution starts by reversing the word 'love'.:)

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm comfortable with who I am, does that mean I love myself?

Only you can answer that.:)

Lantus wrote: »

If some parts of bible are obviously not meant to be taken literally then why not others. Of course the reason why there are so many different churches and statements like this is because the bible like any other piece of written text is 'open to interpretation'.

The words we use have almost very little meaning and can be twisted and turned to be interpreted in a variety of differing ways. Does this mean that god would of failed his 11+ in writing and reading like so many other children?

No, all it means is that the language we use today is ancient and old and cannot accuratley convey meaning between people. If it could there would be no war and no misundertsandings. There would be no interpretation as to what something meant, it would be simply understood.

There are no ambiguities when a plain reading of scripture is applied.

shizz wrote: »

What's "a plain reading"? Just reading without any thought being applied?

Its reading each verse the way that it is obviously written ... i.e. reading obvious historical accounts as actual historical accounts, parables as parables, poetry as poetry, law as law and analogies as analogies.

Lantus wrote: »

science doesn't do opinion or majority view. When the world was discovered to be spherical the person who discovered it stated that is so. If it was the majority decision then it would of remained flat as most people believed it was so at the time.

Science didn't say "well its a little round and little flat." they present the evidence as it is and do not comprimise or apologise. Man has now developed the tools and understanding of the universe and the world he inhabits to know that it is incredibly old.

Organised institutional science didn't exist at that time ... and Christian Churches (other than a few heretics) have always believed that the Earth wasn't flat ...

Again I'll let AIG educate you on this matter:-

"Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded.

Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’.

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.

Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical.

Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.

Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
Later writers repeated the error

In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.

In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.

Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.

Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.)
Encyclopedias erase the myth

While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).

nickcave wrote: »

It's a promising step when creationists use the term 'religious commitment' as a means of discrediting somebody, though you should really pick your battles in this case. There is no debate on whether the earth is several thousand years old or several billion years old. You only need to look at the academic backgrounds of those who continue to write young-earth literature to realise that. It's more than compelling - unless you think there's some kind of conspiracy in the established scientific ecosphere. Good luck to you if you do.

Not a conspiracy ... more an open, 'in your face' bias.

wrote:

AIG
... evolutionary scientists assume that the radioactive elements inside the rocks have always been decaying at the same rate

nickcave

That's how it works. Unless there's been a massive upheaval in the understood laws of physics somewhere along the line which left no residue of itself.

... there is a residue ... you must have missed this
http://phys.org/news202456660.html
... even though the effect is currently relatively small ... the fact that Neutrinos are believed to be involved means that the effect could be quite large if the Sun were more unstable than it currently is.

In any event, the other two factors (1) scientists must guess at the composition of the rock when it first formed and (2) evolutionary scientists must guess at how much contamination and/or leaching has occurred ... are probably the greatest source of inaccuracy in determining rock ages.:)