Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

[Margno]

You've made a claim that in order to believe the bible literally, you must believe that the timeline of earth has never changed. Prove it.

What do you mean by, "timeline of Earth"?

The sequence of events in the universe which we occupy, which is called earth in Christian theology.

[Sun Wukong]

What do you mean by, "timeline of Earth"?

The sequence of events in the universe which we occupy, which is called earth in Christian theology.

You're asking him to disprove chronomancy?

[Securitan]

So it's a case of magical adaptable text then. There's always another way to interpret it that justifies the facts in the real world.

It's a historical record of ancient observations, which, in the context of science, we interpret in light of contemporary understandings of physics.

Contemporary understandings of physics in the Bible were just about nil. When you read an ancient book, you have to keep in mind the context in which it was written, not thrust it into an entirely new, modern context.

EDIT: It is most certainly not a historical record. It is a hob-cobbled collection of scripts which build on older scripts that sometimes contain events that happened at one point in time.

[Margno]

You've made a claim that in order to believe the bible literally, you must believe that the timeline of earth has never changed. Prove it.

I suppose you can believe the Bible literally and also believe that the timeline of the Earth has changed, but it wouldn't make sense in the context of what the people writing the Bible down thought they were writing down. I don't think they had alternate timelines in mind, and I think that because alternate timelines are never mentioned.

You're right, I don't think so either, but I think that they didn't have to understand all the characteristics of a phenomenon on a scientific basis to record it. And I think that, weighing the evidence, positing multiple universes is the responsible action for a Christian historian to take to explain these phenomena at this time. The theological meaning of the text was what it was then, and hasn't changed. But matters of fact unrelated to the theological meaning are definitely subject to this process of examination in the context of modern science.

[Securitan]

I suppose you can believe the Bible literally and also believe that the timeline of the Earth has changed, but it wouldn't make sense in the context of what the people writing the Bible down thought they were writing down. I don't think they had alternate timelines in mind, and I think that because alternate timelines are never mentioned.

You're right, I don't think so either, but I think that they didn't have to understand all the characteristics of a phenomenon on a scientific basis to record it. And I think that, weighing the evidence, positing multiple universes is the responsible action for a Christian historian to take to explain these phenomena at this time. The theological meaning of the text was what it was then, and hasn't changed. But matters of fact unrelated to the theological meaning are definitely subject to this process.

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis were witnesses of actual historical events.

[Margno]

It's a historical record of ancient observations, which, in the context of science, we interpret in light of contemporary understandings of physics.

Contemporary understandings of physics in the Bible were just about nil. When you read an ancient book, you have to keep in mind the context in which it was written, not thrust it into an entirely new, modern context.

EDIT: It is most certainly not a historical record. It is a hob-cobbled collection of scripts which build on older scripts that sometimes contain events that happened at one point in time.

Contemporary as in those understandings which we believe right now. As in, they recorded it without understanding what it was, but we, looking back, can postulate as to what it was because science has advanced.

[Benuty]

You're right, I don't think so either, but I think that they didn't have to understand all the characteristics of a phenomenon on a scientific basis to record it. And I think that, weighing the evidence, positing multiple universes is the responsible action for a Christian historian to take to explain these phenomena at this time. The theological meaning of the text was what it was then, and hasn't changed. But matters of fact unrelated to the theological meaning are definitely subject to this process.

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis we're witnesses of actual historical events.

I believe you mean the woman who wrote down Genesis from oral accounts. It was edited as Yahwism entered stages of becoming Monotheistic.

[Securitan]

Contemporary understandings of physics in the Bible were just about nil. When you read an ancient book, you have to keep in mind the context in which it was written, not thrust it into an entirely new, modern context.

EDIT: It is most certainly not a historical record. It is a hob-cobbled collection of scripts which build on older scripts that sometimes contain events that happened at one point in time.

Contemporary as in those understandings which we believe right now. As in, they recorded it without understanding what it was, but we, looking back, can postulate as to what it was because science has advanced.

Refer to my above post.

[Margno]

You're right, I don't think so either, but I think that they didn't have to understand all the characteristics of a phenomenon on a scientific basis to record it. And I think that, weighing the evidence, positing multiple universes is the responsible action for a Christian historian to take to explain these phenomena at this time. The theological meaning of the text was what it was then, and hasn't changed. But matters of fact unrelated to the theological meaning are definitely subject to this process.

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis were witnesses of actual historical events.

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation, and perhaps some form of unconscious memory of the alternate timeline.

[Godular]

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis were witnesses of actual historical events.

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation.

On what basis?

[Securitan]

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis were witnesses of actual historical events.

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation.

Unless you have evidence of that, your argument is bunk.

[Sun Wukong]

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis we're witnesses of actual historical events.

I believe you mean the woman who wrote down Genesis from oral accounts. It was edited as Yahwism entered stages of becoming Monotheistic.

Would you please stop trying to shove your obscure pseudo-biblical-historiography down everyone's throat. It's tiresome.

[Securitan]

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis we're witnesses of actual historical events.

I believe you mean the woman who wrote down Genesis from oral accounts. It was edited as Yahwism entered stages of becoming Monotheistic.

Yeah - even worse. Now they're not even the original stories, let alone eyewitness accounts.

[Sun Wukong]

I don't think the people that wrote down Genesis were witnesses of actual historical events.

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation, and perhaps some form of unconscious memory of the alternate timeline.

Contradiction in terms.

[Securitan]

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation, and perhaps some form of unconscious memory of the alternate timeline.

Contradiction in terms.

It wouldn't be if mysticism made any damn sense.

[Margno]

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation.

On what basis?

The fact that its theology matches other theology which I independently believe to be true, and that it was attested on the basis of its theology by other people whose theology I independently believe to be true.
Ultimately, the chain of causation goes back to a priori arguments for the neccesity of apprehending my implicit (though potentially unrecognized) belief in the existence and attributes of God.
But I'm kind of here to make my case to proponents of young earth creationism, if that's all right.

[Margno]

No, nor do I, but I do think its origin was legitimate mysticism, also called divine revelation.

Unless you have evidence of that, your argument is bunk.

(As above)

[Securitan]

On what basis?

The fact that its theology matches other theology which I independently believe to be true, and that it was attested on the basis of its theology by other people whose theology I independently believe to be true.
Ultimately, the chain of causation goes back to a priori arguments for the neccesity of apprehending my implicit (though potentially unrecognized) belief in the existence and attributes of God.
But I'm kind of here to make my case to proponents of young earth creationism, if that's all right.

That wouldn't be evidence, that would be loose correlation.

[Securitan]

Wait, you're right, this isn't the topic of the thread. Feel free to debunk whatever else I said but let's move on for now.

Do you believe in ID?

[Godular]

On what basis?

The fact that its theology matches other theology which I independently believe to be true, and that it was attested on the basis of its theology by other people whose theology I independently believe to be true.
Ultimately, the chain of causation goes back to a priori arguments for the neccesity of apprehending my implicit (though potentially unrecognized) belief in the existence and attributes of God.
But I'm kind of here to make my case to proponents of young earth creationism, if that's all right.

On what basis?

All I'm seeing is 'the Bible is true because it says its true'

[Securitan]

The fact that its theology matches other theology which I independently believe to be true, and that it was attested on the basis of its theology by other people whose theology I independently believe to be true.
Ultimately, the chain of causation goes back to a priori arguments for the neccesity of apprehending my implicit (though potentially unrecognized) belief in the existence and attributes of God.
But I'm kind of here to make my case to proponents of young earth creationism, if that's all right.

On what basis?

All I'm seeing is 'the Bible is true because it says its true'

I think he meant valid more than true.

[Tekania]

What is your opinion on ID and evolution?

My opinion on evolutionary science is that it is good and useful. My opinion on ID is that it is a term which has been hijacked from Evolutionary Creationist Theology as an excuse for YEC types who have no fucking clue what "probability" actually means.

[Benuty]

I believe you mean the woman who wrote down Genesis from oral accounts. It was edited as Yahwism entered stages of becoming Monotheistic.

Would you please stop trying to shove your obscure pseudo-biblical-historiography down everyone's throat. It's tiresome.

I would not call a reference from Harold Blooms A Book on J obscure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Blo ... _criticism

[Geilinor]

Would you please stop trying to shove your obscure pseudo-biblical-historiography down everyone's throat. It's tiresome.

I would not call a reference from Harold Blooms A Book on J obscure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Blo ... _criticism

Too much speculation.

[Securitan]

I'd love to see a thread about cellular cosmonogy, but I don't think enough people believe in it for there to be a fruitful discussion.

EDIT: Even better, one debating people that believe in a flat earth.