Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[Stripe]

Ha! Glad you noticed. That was the first time I'd ever happened to actually notice the "Insert Emoji" button in the toolbar--whereupon I found sorts of extra goodies to choose from.

It was a Chinese character before it was Kanji. :banana:


無

 

[JudgeRightly]

It was a Chinese character before it was Kanji. :banana:

無

True, but I believe (and he can correct me if I'm wrong on this) that 7s meant it as "free of charge."



¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Stripe]

True, but I believe (and he can correct me if I'm wrong on this) that 7s meant it as "free of charge."

Looks like you're right. :noid:


In my second language, you'd have to give more context than that one character to convey "free of charge." At least, I've not come across that shorthand.


Japanese. :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

In certain areas you may well do but in regards to evolution and the age of the earth you assuredly don't. Science doesn't start with an immutable conclusion from the outset and the theory of evolution came about because of the evidence. Fact. You can stamp your feet and be ignorant or dishonest about it all that you want. Won't change anything.

There are no "absolute facts" that determine that earth is "billions of years old". That is just where you like to begin.

You are convinced that God cannot communicate with His creation. That's just silly and wrong.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Meanwhile, you have been asked numerous times, just in this thread, to provide something of substance to justify your slew of accusations. Not once have you come close to offering anything even resembling something useful.

The people you malign, on the other hand, have made many attempts to introduce evidence, reasoning and compromise.

To quote you: "Sad."

What "slew of accusations" would they be exactly? What your idea of "reasoning" and "compromise" are is anyone's guess given your track record of stupid "Darwinist" tropes and mock smileys as "response". Your history is on record here Stripe. You had ample opportunity to engage rationally when confronted with Alate and Barb's arguments. Instead, you either resorted to the above or kept going on about Walt Brown. The hydroplate theory was sank by Alate and you had nothing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There are no "absolute facts" that determine that earth is "billions of years old". That is just where you like to begin.

You are convinced that God cannot communicate with His creation. That's just silly and wrong.

It would be if that's anything akin to what I've argued. It isn't.

 

[7djengo7]

True, but I believe (and he can correct me if I'm wrong on this) that 7s meant it as "free of charge."

You're right, that's what I meant with it. Although I didn't know it meant that until I happened to learn it from the tooltip that appeared when I put the cursor over it. To me, it looks a little bit like a shopping cart.

 

[annabenedetti]

What "slew of accusations" would they be exactly? What your idea of "reasoning" and "compromise" are is anyone's guess given your track record of stupid "Darwinist" tropes and mock smileys as "response". Your history is on record here Stripe. You had ample opportunity to engage rationally when confronted with Alate and Barb's arguments. Instead, you either resorted to the above or kept going on about Walt Brown. The hydroplate theory was sank by Alate and you had nothing.

You're talking to two people who are driven by an urgent need to use as many words as possible, as often as possible.

It's like trying to take a sip from a fire hose. I admire your perseverence though.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You're talking to two people who are driven by an urgent need to use as many words as possible, as often as possible.

It's like trying to take a sip from a fire hose. I admire your perseverence though.

That would probably be more fun...

 

[7djengo7]

You're talking to two people who are driven by an urgent need to use as many words as possible, as often as possible.

In the context you provided, your phrase, "as often as possible", is redundant. Obviously you're "driven by an urgent need" to use more words than necessary. Sweet backfire.

It's like trying to take a sip from a fire hose. I admire your perseverence though.

Were I to consider somebody's behavior to be "like trying to take a sip from a fire hose", unlike you, I definitely would not admire his perseverance in it.

 

[7djengo7]

It would be if that's anything akin to what I've argued. It isn't.

You've never argued. At least, not on TOL. You've spent all your time on TOL lying and farting, not arguing. ♠

 

[Arthur Brain]

You've never argued. At least, not on TOL. You've spent all your time on TOL lying and farting, not arguing. ♠

Predictably immature and deranged...

Well done you!

Now, not really bothered about bandying words with someone who should already be asleep under his bridge so buh bye.

:e4e:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because you say so? You can probably guess as to how much respect I have for that.

No, not because I say so, but because the entire thread is a witness to you doing just that.

Alate One is one of the most consistent and honest posters on this site.

And yet, that doesn't make her correct.

She knows her stuff inside out

Which, again, doesn't make her correct.

and after she was candid about how she could no longer reconcile YEC with the evidence she was treated with juvenile derision. If I recall correctly, you yourself accused her of selling out.

Mocking someone for rejecting what God's word is never wrong.

No I don't, so that's just an erroneous presumption on your part.

You have yet to detail what, exactly, in the Bible, is allegory and what is not.

Hence why I asked you to do so, starting with Genesis 1.

Then you jumped off to Matthew and Luke without even bothering.

Would you like to try now?

Starting with Genesis 1:1, and going AT LEAST up to and including Genesis 2:25, what would you consider to be allegory, and what would you consider to be literal?

Keep in mind that what is written may not be exclusively literal or exclusively allegory.

It hardly makes it incorrect

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, and using such to defend your position shows your position to be illogical at best, and dishonest at worst.

Whether you're correct or not has nothing to do with it. Don't use logical fallacies to support your position.

because you happen to disagree with it and there's no need for an appeal to anything.

Sure there is. There's the appeal to logic and reason, which you aren't wont to do.

Appealing to tradition, as you did, IS, however, unnecessary.

Your insistence on the rigidly literal

Straw man. I've told you before, "rigidly literal" is not my position.

"Plain reading of the text" is.

and a young earth makes you right?

Of course not.

I have never claimed such.

Because creationist "science" is not science. It starts with an immutable conclusion that is entirely at odds with the scientific method and ignores/disregards any manner of evidence that doesn't fit in with said conclusion based on religious belief. Fact.

:deadhorse:

There's no "special pleading" going on here at all so you really wanna drop that...

What you were doing was, by definition, special pleading.

Ignoring some evidence because it doesn't fit with your position.

Um, no they don't JR.

Um, yes they do, AB.

Anyone who starts out with an immutable conclusion before any evidence has been gathered and refuses to acknowledge evidence that ties in with said conclusion is not abiding by the scientific method.

Again, can you point out where such has occurred?

Have any of the scientists that have been cited over the years on TOL done this that you can prove?

No,

Then why are you making such a big deal about it?

but then none of the actual scientists on here have been young earth creationists

Moving the goalposts.

I asked "Have any of the scientists that have been CITED . . . on TOL done this".

or at least not when they've posted about science on here. Like Alate One

Supra.

Doesn't mean it isn't either by the same token.

Again, using a logical fallacy to support your position won't work, regardless if you're correct or not.

Stop using logical fallacies.

There hasn't been anything

Sure there has. You're just not willing to consider it because it conflicts with your a priori beliefs of millions/billions of years.

approaching a compelling argument from the YEC camp.

This coming from someone who has so far used nothing but logical fallacies this entire thread to defend his position.

Again, there are plenty of compelling arguments from the "YEC camp." You simply reject them because of your a priori beliefs.

Juvenile garbage, childish snark etc when confronted with actual scientists who know their stuff is hardly convincing....

:yawn:

Rather, a recognition of someone well versed in their respective field.

Claiming they are correct because of such is called an appeal to authority, which is, in fact, a logical fallacy.

Or are you willing to admit that there is a possibility that scientists, such as Alate One, are wrong when it comes to the age of the earth, among other things, and to take that into consideration when such persons argue against the claims of the Bible that the universe and the earth are young?

Hardly, but you have a penchant for accusing others of hypocrisy while failing to acknowledge your own so no surprise really.

:yawn:

Ad hominem.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Isn't God light?

See above.

Don't dodge the question, Arty.

Is the Bible literally correct when it says that the sun is not a god, but that the sun is a light?

Sure, one that's not constrained by a restrictive belief system.

Again, this coming from your subjective (not objective) point of view.

Get the point yet?

Sure. That's why "creationist science" doesn't come under that banner as explained prior.

:deadhorse:

Um. yes they have, there's been plenty of links to "creation science" sites and papers.

Genetic fallacy. Who or where an argument comes from does not affect the veracity of the argument.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Honestly, I don't understand how you can't see allegory in it.

Of course there's allegory in it.

That doesn't mean that it's all allegory, nor does it mean that some of it isn't literal or didn't actually happen, and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't true.

An all powerful God could create the universe in a nanosecond

Of course He could.

But of course, that's not what the Bible says He did, and for a reason.

and nor would He literally need to rest after creation.

This is a straw man, you're arguing against the woodenly literal position, which I do not hold to, nor does any other creationist in this thread.

The word "rest" in Genesis 2 means to cease or desist from doing.

Moses is just saying that God ended His creating on the sixth day and did not create more on the sreventh day.

It's not saying He took a break because He was tired. It's saying that He stopped creating.

It makes sense that it's described in such a way and especially to people in the bronze age.

Well, no, it doesn't, because your attempt at an explanation is false.

Words have meaning, Arty, and I'm sure you know this, but the Bible wasn't originally written in English, but in Hebrew in the Old Testament, and Greek (and some Aramaic) in the New Testament.

Would be rather pointless to describe meteorological phenomena at such a time when nobody would have a clue what it was.

And to what, exactly, are you referring to here?

Oh, so now there's symbolism? That's convenient.

I never said there wasn't, Arty.

See above and above.

You didn't answer the question above. So I'll ask again.

How do two genealogies that follow two different branches of the same family tree of Jesus Christ invalidate what Genesis says about Creation?

They are two different genealogies that you seem to regard as symbolic depending.

Symbolic, yes. Non-literal? NO, of course not!

Or are you asserting that one person can't have family trees that branch off and eventually rejoin several generations later?

Oh, you insist that do you?

As opposed to reading it willy-nilly?

Sure.

Unlike you, I have a systematic theology that provides structure to my beliefs.

It allows me to look at the text and understand it's meaning based on the context of what is being said, because words have specific meanings that usually don't change even if they are placed in different contexts.

Who are you to define

I don't.

The context of the word or phrase does.

as to what should be read literally, taken as a figure of speech and allegory? Do please tell...

Again, I don't define anything. Nor should you.

The context of a word or phrase (along with the definition of the word itself and how it is used) defines its meaning.

Simply read the text for what it says, and gather your meaning based on what it says, rather than what you want it to say.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, you seem insistent on making it up for yourself, more's the pity.

If you can recognize allegory in the creation account then you should be able to understand that it is not a rigidly literal

Straw man.

history

Why can't it be literal?

and that the earth is not limited to being little more than ten thousand years old. Really is as simple as that.

Non-sequitur.

Though not necessarily the one that you insist on it being.

Because you say so?

Why can't it be an allegory?

You're the one asserting it must be.

Show why, please.

You think the Bible would go into scientific detail when nobody would have understood it per the thunderstorm example?

Didn't you just recognize that the Bible isn't a science text book?

Why should a history book (which is what the Bible is) go into scientific detail about anything?

If you weren't so constrained by your fundamentalism you'd see just how simple it is to recognize the allegory.

Just because something is allegorical doesn't mean it cannot be truth.

Save me from what? Your pomposity?

:freak:

Ad hominem.

The onus is not on me here Stripe. Why do the two accounts differ at all?

Explain that.

Be specific.[/QUOTE]

Because family trees typically have different branches. And it just so happens that two of those branches rejoined each other with Mary and Joseph.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's pretty silly on your part. The theory of evolution didn't start with a conclusion that tried to shoehorn data to support it

Uh... yes it did...

It started with the assumption on Darwin's part that Genesis wasn't literal (not woodenly literal, not rigidly literal) and that God was incorrect when He had Moses write that He created in 6 days.

And once more data became available that utterly disproved his "theory," it should have been discarded. But of course, man's rebellion against God is such that men will do anything, including rejecting evidence, to resist Him.

and nor does God's word have to be discarded in order to accept it, as plenty of Christians can attest to.

Sure it does.

Because when you trade Genesis for Darwinianism (evolution), everything else in the Bible goes out the window.

See https://youtu.be/t8FfF2BgP9E

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, not because I say so, but because the entire thread is a witness to you doing just that.

So, it really is just because you say so because no, I haven't actually done anything of the sort and nor will I.

And yet, that doesn't make her correct.

Which, again, doesn't make her correct.

It certainly doesn't make her incorrect.

Mocking someone for rejecting what God's word is never wrong.

She didn't do that. She was honest enough to recognize that the scientific evidence couldn't be compatible with a young earth. She had the courage to face it that led to her revising her belief system, to the point where she realized that having faith in God and accepting the science weren't mutually exclusive. Know how much honesty and bravery it takes to arrogantly and childishly "mock" someone for doing that? Yes, none.

You have yet to detail what, exactly, in the Bible, is allegory and what is not.

Hence why I asked you to do so, starting with Genesis 1.

Then you jumped off to Matthew and Luke without even bothering.

Would you like to try now?

Starting with Genesis 1:1, and going AT LEAST up to and including Genesis 2:25, what would you consider to be allegory, and what would you consider to be literal?

Keep in mind that what is written may not be exclusively literal or exclusively allegory.

Mostly allegory. God wouldn't need to "speak" things into existence but it would make more sense to people of the time for having descriptors like that. Also, the "God saw that it was good" repetitions. Well, what else was it going to be? But again, aimed at a bronze age audience it had to be pretty basic and underlined. The whole six day creation. God could have created the universe in a nanosecond if He's all powerful but once again, it would help the audience of the day to have a timeframe. In a literal sense it makes sense that other life was created before man. Back to allegory, a woman being made out of man's rib? A "tree of life" whereby a talking serpent convinces Eve to eat from it?

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, and using such to defend your position shows your position to be illogical at best, and dishonest at worst.

Whether you're correct or not has nothing to do with it. Don't use logical fallacies to support your position.

These are just some of your usual sound bites that mean nothing. You can believe the earth to be young, that everything goes out of the window Biblically etc all that you want. It is not incumbent on anybody else to believe the same as you, nor is it dishonest or illogical. Or an appeal to tradition or some such.

Sure there is. There's the appeal to logic and reason, which you aren't wont to do.

Appealing to tradition, as you did, IS, however, unnecessary.

Logic and reason would give you pause for thought as to why honest people like Alate One had the integrity to challenge her YEC beliefs. Instead, you'll probably just "mock" her again.

Straw man. I've told you before, "rigidly literal" is not my position.

"Plain reading of the text" is.

What exactly is the difference? If you acknowledge that parts of the account are allegorical then which ones would they be and how do you "plainly" read them as such?

I have never claimed such.

Sure you have. You accused Alate of selling out and rejecting God's word for abandoning her YEC beliefs.

:deadhorse:

Well, it's true, it's just not science.

What you were doing was, by definition, special pleading.

Ignoring some evidence because it doesn't fit with your position.

How much evidence have you ignored or dismissed that doesn't fit in with YEC? I've yet to see any "evidence" that hasn't been roundly debunked. I've followed this type of debate for years on here and the only compelling arguments have been from professional scientists, often in the face of juvenility and childish behaviour when YEC has been shown to be the bunk that it is.

Um, yes they do, AB.

Um, no, they don't JR. (This is fun isn't it?) lain:

Again, can you point out where such has occurred?

Sure, from the dawn of the "creation science" movement.

Moving the goalposts.

I asked "Have any of the scientists that have been CITED . . . on TOL done this".

That would depend on who they were. If they were legitimate scientists then no.

Supra.

Ditto.

Again, using a logical fallacy to support your position won't work, regardless if you're correct or not.

Stop using logical fallacies.

Stop using the same tired sound bites.

Sure there has. You're just not willing to consider it because it conflicts with your a priori beliefs of millions/billions of years.

Not a convincing one there hasn't. As I said before, I've followed the debates on this subject for years on here and the only compelling arguments have come from those who are actual scientists. All YEC stuff has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked time and again. I wouldn't mind if the earth is 4.5 billion years old or ten thousand. The evidence simply doesn't support the latter however.

This coming from someone who has so far used nothing but logical fallacies this entire thread to defend his position.

Again, there are plenty of compelling arguments from the "YEC camp." You simply reject them because of your a priori beliefs.

Nope, but you keep with that juvenile sound bite if you want though. There simply haven't been, to you perhaps but then how honestly and thoroughly have you read the systematic dismantling of them?

:yawn:

Ironic...

Claiming they are correct because of such is called an appeal to authority, which is, in fact, a logical fallacy.

Or are you willing to admit that there is a possibility that scientists, such as Alate One, are wrong when it comes to the age of the earth, among other things, and to take that into consideration when such persons argue against the claims of the Bible that the universe and the earth are young?

They're not arguing against the claims of the Bible but rather your interpretation of what they must be. Are you willing to consider that you might just be the one in error? Otherwise, your question is moot.

:yawn:

Ad hominem.

No, it wasn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Uh... yes it did...

It started with the assumption on Darwin's part that Genesis wasn't literal (not woodenly literal, not rigidly literal) and that God was incorrect when He had Moses write that He created in 6 days.

And once more data became available that utterly disproved his "theory," it should have been discarded. But of course, man's rebellion against God is such that men will do anything, including rejecting evidence, to resist Him.

No it didn't and this is stupefying ignorance on your part.

:freak:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

There hasn't been anything that has "utterly disproved" the theory of evolution so that's just an outright falsehood else cite to the "proof".

Sure it does.

Because when you trade Genesis for Darwinianism (evolution), everything else in the Bible goes out the window.

See https://youtu.be/t8FfF2BgP9E

No, it really doesn't. That's why plenty Christians can accept evolution with having faith.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Straw man.

Why can't it be literal?

In relation to a young earth it can't be, rigidly at any rate.

Non-sequitur.

Anything that places limits on how old the earth is has already done away with the evidence.

Because you say so?

Well, no.

You're the one asserting it must be.

Show why, please.

See a coupla posts back.

Didn't you just recognize that the Bible isn't a science text book?

Why should a history book (which is what the Bible is) go into scientific detail about anything?

It wouldn't.

Just because something is allegorical doesn't mean it cannot be truth.

Sure, but not necessarily one constrained by the parameters of a belief system, like YEC. There's enough clues as to how time isn't restrained by human standards in the Bible. A day being as a thousand years for a start.

Ad hominem.

It wasn't and I'm sure Stripe's delicate sensibilities could deal with it anyway...

Because family trees typically have different branches. And it just so happens that two of those branches rejoined each other with Mary and Joseph.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Not if you're talking about the original and literal family tree they shouldn't. They should both read exactly the same.