A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Juddog]

You are clueless. The same refinements in science is with honest Bible readers. For instance, the passage you idiotically quoted as Jesus promoting violence because he said "I will bring not peace but a sword", examining the surrounding contents would leave readers to believe how his teachings would be divisive, not that his intent is to bring harm to people.

There was a time when people thought he meant violence. That's a refinement, and thus, updated understanding.

Your interpretation of an ancient line of text being different than someone's interpretation 500 years ago doesn't change the fact that the volume of text known as the Bible cannot be improved upon. That's the entire point that you seem to be missing.

 

[Markbnj]

For instance, the passage you idiotically quoted as Jesus promoting violence because he said "I will bring not peace but a sword", examining the surrounding contents would leave readers to believe how his teachings would be divisive, not that his intent is to bring harm to people.

Yeah, that passage makes a nice sound bite for one side of the debate, but it is always completely misconstrued. You don't even have to read much of the context to understand that he was saying "I didn't come here to make you all comfy and happy, but to force you to choose between right and wrong."

 

[Retro Rob]

Your interpretation of an ancient line of text being different than someone's interpretation 500 years ago doesn't change the fact that the volume of text known as the Bible cannot be improved upon. That's the entire point that you seem to be missing.

Of course, if it is the word of God, there's no need for improvement. Sorry you cannot accept that.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah, that passage makes a nice sound bite for one side of the debate, but it is always completely misconstrued. You don't even have to read much of the context to understand that he was saying "I didn't come here to make you all comfy and happy, but to force you to choose between right and wrong."

I am sure Juddog knew that, he just didn't think he'd get called out on it.

 

[Juddog]

Of course, if it is the word of God, there's no need for improvement. Sorry you cannot accept that.

But what proof is there that it's literally the word of God, if you know full well ahead of time that humans wrote it?

 

[Juddog]

I am sure Juddog knew that, he just didn't think he'd get called out on it.

There are multiple ways to interpret many of the passages of the Bible; that doesn't change the fact that it can't improve, which directly causes a problem with the stories present within that are physically impossible (e.g. a single boat holding 2 of every species - this was before the time that people realized bacteria existed, or fossils, etc.).

 

[Gibsons]

Oh...ok... I see our disconnect.

No, my point had nothing to do with creationists, but it was in reference to the fact that something being understood and accepted currently doesn't make it right.

But it really does, even if you didn't intend it. You've all but admitted creationism can never be proven wrong. Scientific theories can be, by definition. The price of doing science means you might be wrong. I'm fine with that. If that makes you too uncomfortable, then science really isn't for you.

The price of not doing science is far greater, imo, even if it's a nice warm and comfortable place.

My point isn't that one finding makes the Bible 100% true, but the more time passes, the more evidence is discovered, and the more people begin looking like idiots.

I'd rather be an idiot who tried to learn than whatever the alternative might be.

 

[Retro Rob]

There are multiple ways to interpret many of the passages of the Bible; that doesn't change the fact that it can't improve, which directly causes a problem with the stories present within that are physically impossible (e.g. a single boat holding 2 of every species - this was before the time that people realized bacteria existed, or fossils, etc.).

Nice deflection, but we're talking about your idiotic reference to violence using that verse which proves you CANNOT interpret it "multiple ways". The context makes that hard to do, unless you (generic) just want to remain ignorant.

 

[Retro Rob]

But it really does, even if you didn't intend it. You've all but admitted creationism can never be proven wrong. Scientific theories can be, by definition. The price of doing science means you might be wrong. I'm fine with that. If that makes you too uncomfortable, then science really isn't for you.

The price of not doing science is far greater, imo, even if it's a nice warm and comfortable place.

I'm sorry, I wasn't attempting to say creationism can't be proven wrong -- that really wasn't my intent, so that's probably why we had the small disconnect.

I'd rather be an idiot who tried to learn than whatever the alternative might be.

You're not understanding me...what I am saying is that people who assume something is "wrong" without fully considering the evidence, or even looking for it, are evidently proven "idiotic".

 

[ch33zw1z]

Let's just review: Matthew 10:34 is the quoted verse, look up hte entire 10th chapter is you choose, here's an excerpt.

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

My interpretation is that the "sword" is not a choice between right and wrong, but a choice between following Jesus or not.

Again, this is not right and wrong. Even non-believers make a choices between right and wrong based on morals and ethics acquired throughout life.

This particular chapter is about Jesus sending out his disciples to spread the word. The word is: Jesus is your savior, accept it or perish in the afterlife. by "perish", I mean burn eternally in a lake of fire.

Wow, so humble.

 

[Juddog]

Nice deflection, but we're talking about your idiotic reference to violence using that verse which proves you CANNOT interpret it "multiple ways". The context makes that hard to do, unless you (generic) just want to remain ignorant.

The entire point remains - you cannot change the Bible, in order to upgrade it with a better understanding of God. Yet here we stand, if you look around online, you'll find hundreds of thousands of different explanations of what God is or isn't, and they typically can differ quite a bit from one person to another.

Some people say that God is the background "universe" quantum soup itself, or the fabric of the Universe. Other people think of God as some bearded dude in the sky that watches over you. Other people think of God as some sort of creature, built from pure willpower, capable of doing almost anything (but not quite!), etc..

The Bible remains the canonical source of the idea of God to Christians, and the Quran is the canonical source of God to Muslims, etc.. There is no going back and making a better version, yet you yourself have a distinctly different view of what God is versus what would be found in the Bible.

You also state that my interpretation of a verse is idiotic, yet yours is somehow correct - the same thing can be said about passages about stoning adulterers, etc. - there are Christians out there that would say it's ok to stone an adulterer, since it's written right there in the book, and it was your interpretation that was idiotic.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

This thread will be totally unlike every other thread like this that came before it.

lol

 

[WelshBloke]

lol

Zin can forsee the future!

All hail the great Zin. ()

And he wants a picture of me in my knickers. :wub:

 

[zinfamous]

Zin can forsee the future!

All hail the great Zin. ()

And he wants a picture of me in my knickers. :wub:

Hey hey hey! We have not yet agreed to terms!

 

[Gibsons]

I'm sorry, I wasn't attempting to say creationism can't be proven wrong -- that really wasn't my intent, so that's probably why we had the small disconnect.

Well, it can't be proven wrong. Or at least, no one knows how to.

Evolution can be proven wrong. It just hasn't happened so far.

You're not understanding me...what I am saying is that people who assume something is "wrong" without fully considering the evidence, or even looking for it, are evidently proven "idiotic".

Evidence. Evidence is very important.

We might be about to hit the atheist vs. agnostic argument. paging Cerpin Taxt....

 

[WelshBloke]

Hey hey hey! We have not yet agreed to terms!

:\ Wait... you mean you cant forsee what they are?



BRING THE PITCHFORKS AND BUILD THE BONFIRE.

WE HAVE AN IMPOSTER.

Phew that religion didnt last.

 

[Gibsons]

Zin can forsee the future!

All hail the great Zin. ()

And he wants a picture of me in my knickers. :wub:

but his head is made of 50 butts! I know I read that somewhere.

 

[TerryMathews]

What about them?

By your logic, they should have been thrown out as heresy. Instead they have been used to refine translations and provide historical context.

 

[SlitheryDee]

You are clueless. The same refinements in science is with honest Bible readers. For instance, the passage you idiotically quoted as Jesus promoting violence because he said "I will bring not peace but a sword", examining the surrounding contents would leave readers to believe how his teachings would be divisive, not that his intent is to bring harm to people.

There was a time when people thought he meant violence. That's a refinement, and thus, updated understanding.

How did this updated understanding come about? People just read the same passages over and over again and one day "decided" they meant something different? How can they do that with no new information? It seems more likely that it was the people themselves who changed. Their own sense of morality became more refined than what was in the bible simply by living in the enlightened age we find ourselves in, but they couldn't let go of the ideal of Jesus being the ultimate benchmark for morality.

It would simply not be acceptable for the zeitgeist to have moved so far beyond him as to make him start looking like the bronze age primitive that had to have been. It would be easy enough for a religious person who desperately needs to believe in the divine goodness of Jesus to convince themselves that "that wasn't what he really meant". That's why the thing that you are calling a "refinement" is really just a sign of how far we've come morally since Jesus' time, and has almost nothing to do with what may or may not have originally been intended by that passage. No new information has been unearthed to change the meaning of the passage. The only variable is the people who interpreted it and their steady progression toward a superior secular morality.

 

[chiza]

How did this updated understanding come about? People just read the same passages over and over again and one day "decided" they meant something different? How can they do that with no new information? It seems more likely that it was the people themselves who changed. Their own sense of morality became more refined than what was in the bible simply by living in the enlightened age we find ourselves in, but they couldn't let go of the ideal of Jesus being the ultimate benchmark for morality.

It would simply not be acceptable for the zeitgeist to have moved so far beyond him as to make him start looking like the bronze age primitive that had to have been. It would be easy enough for a religious person who desperately needs to believe in the divine goodness of Jesus to convince themselves that "that wasn't what he really meant". That's why the thing that you are calling a "refinement" is really just a sign of how far we've come morally since Jesus' time, and has almost nothing to do with what may or may not have originally been intended by that passage. No new information has been unearthed to change the meaning of the passage. The only variable is the people who interpreted it and their steady progression toward a superior secular morality.

Exactly. Rob, if you can't understand this fundamental difference, I don't think we can continue talking about this conversion.

 

[Juddog]

By your logic, they should have been thrown out as heresy. Instead they have been used to refine translations and provide historical context.

You missed the point - they aren't new. When you can write some new verses, then get them added to the book, then it will be more akin to a scientific method. Until that happens, the only thing you've shown me is different ways of interpreting canon, which is about as unscientific as it gets.

 

[Brigandier]

Bible is just an old word for book. I think it should be updated with useful information, such as how to build fires, ovens, forge, proper agricultural methods, carpentry methods, mineralogy, blacksmithing, brewing, etc. A book, that everyone followed, and if need be provide a framework for starting civilization after a cataclysm.

Philosophy, morality, ethics, spirituality, etc. should also play a role in the new "bible".

 

[Retro Rob]

How did this updated understanding come about? People just read the same passages over and over again and one day "decided" they meant something different? How can they do that with no new information? It seems more likely that it was the people themselves who changed. Their own sense of morality became more refined than what was in the bible simply by living in the enlightened age we find ourselves in, but they couldn't let go of the ideal of Jesus being the ultimate benchmark for morality.

It would simply not be acceptable for the zeitgeist to have moved so far beyond him as to make him start looking like the bronze age primitive that had to have been. It would be easy enough for a religious person who desperately needs to believe in the divine goodness of Jesus to convince themselves that "that wasn't what he really meant". That's why the thing that you are calling a "refinement" is really just a sign of how far we've come morally since Jesus' time, and has almost nothing to do with what may or may not have originally been intended by that passage. No new information has been unearthed to change the meaning of the passage. The only variable is the people who interpreted it and their steady progression toward a superior secular morality.

Here's a good example I will show you, an easy one. The command to love your neighbor undoubtedly could have been interpreted to mean the person of your same race, or even the person that pitches his tent next to yours.

Since the word "neighbor" isn't specific to any individual, nor to race of persons, we can conclude that he means every human no matter race, religion, creed, etc.

The thing about the Bible is that it is amazingly applicable to modern life (from a principle standpoint) with it appealing, not to changing science and human theories, but to human nature.

You guys are missing that simple fact, and making the issue more complicated.

Sure, you can misapply scripture just as you can misuse a gun -- the point remains, its not a science, so the comparison is mind-shrinkingly asinine.

 

[Retro Rob]

Bible is just an old word for book. I think it should be updated with useful information, such as how to build fires, ovens, forge, proper agricultural methods, carpentry methods, mineralogy, blacksmithing, brewing, etc. A book, that everyone followed, and if need be provide a framework for starting civilization after a cataclysm.

Philosophy, morality, ethics, spirituality, etc. should also play a role in the new "bible".

You'd be right if the Bible presented itself as a science text-book.

This cannot be this complicated to understand.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A video of puppies being born.

If you actually look at what has to happen for life to form, and to form so perfectly...I don't see how you can consider that anything but a miracle.

Painting the target around the arrow. A common creationist fallacy.