A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2012, 10:10 PM
A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
They're not fucking smart enough to organize their topic chronologically so I helped them out here. But they are fucking very intelligent motherfuckers trying to reconcile scripture with science. Many of their arguments are valid. But none of their arguments are sound because the premises are based on myth.

KC will probably find something useful, here. ... Me, I saw an impressive display of completely unnecessary mental gymnastics if you just let go of God.


[Image: cleardot.gif]
http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ing-series

http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...rns-part-1


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...rns-part-2

http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ley-part-1


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ley-part-2


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ly-neutral


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...al-part-ii

http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ski-part-i


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ki-part-ii


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ent-design


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...dew-part-i

http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ew-part-ii


http://biologos.org/blog/evolutionary-cr...-imago-dei

http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ett-part-1


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ett-part-2

http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ion-part-1


http://biologos.org/blog/southern-baptis...ion-part-2

http://biologos.org/blog/what-does-it-me...tle-part-1

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2012, 11:46 PM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
Yeah... been an avid reader of biologos long before TTA.

Good job Girly Smile

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2012, 12:22 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution w/ Scripture
http://biologos.org/about

[Image: pURjO.jpg]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
07-08-2012, 11:20 AM
Scipture and science
(19-07-2012 10:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  . But they are very intelligent .. trying to reconcile scripture with science. Many of their arguments are valid. But none of their arguments are sound because the premises are based on myth.
I agree with your view that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.
The claim that Scripture is a myth? It will be interesting to find what you understand a myth to be and proof of this claim with reference to your understanding of a myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: Scipture and science
(07-08-2012 11:20 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(19-07-2012 10:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  . But they are very intelligent .. trying to reconcile scripture with science. Many of their arguments are valid. But none of their arguments are sound because the premises are based on myth.
I agree with your view that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.
The claim that Scripture is a myth? It will be interesting to find what you understand a myth to be and proof of this claim with reference to your understanding of a myth.

Hello Smile Welcome to TTA.

I apologize that I am not the OP but I'm gonna answer you anyway 'cos I'm bored.

You could start by meditating on what's not mythical about the killer combo of Jonah + whale? (I would say Noah's ark but we've belaboured Noah's ark all over the forum for about half a year so I think it's time for a change). Or do you contend that it is fact? We all know that a myth = a fairytale = a story that when you get down to the meat of it, *is not true*.

Basically, a myth is a lie hallowed by time. Now: you say scripture is *not* myth? Hum. How about Jesus. Man walks on water. Sans... you know, inflatable boots. Well I mean I contend that if there *were* inflatable boots then they were a striking omission from the story. Or will you tell me that all Jews of that time period wore inflatable boots and therefore the author of Luke wouldn't have thought it worth mentioning?

To which I reply: but then why would walking on water be taken as unusual? To which you would reply... it's not the walking on water, it's the fact that he did it during a thunderstorm. The make of boots they had available in those days wasn't suitable for anything except fine summer weather.

er... I seem to have got off track. Ah yes. How's about:... hmm I'm having trouble picking... man flying away in a chariot into the sky? You think that literally happened?

Do you think that:
a. a man was literally eaten by a fish, then sicked up three days later alive alive o?
b. a man walked on water that was actually deeper than his sandals... basically levitated over the water on the Sea of Galilee?
c. a man was picked up by some kinda cosmic taxi cab and whisked off to heaven?

If not, are these not clear examples of lies?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
07-08-2012, 02:29 PM
RE: Scipture and science
(07-08-2012 11:20 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I agree with your view that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

Girly didn't say that.

But, I'm interested in why you think this.

Could you defend your assertion?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 01:27 AM
RE: Scipture and science
(07-08-2012 01:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 11:20 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I agree with your view that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.
The claim that Scripture is a myth? It will be interesting to find what you understand a myth to be and proof of this claim with reference to your understanding of a myth.

Hello Smile Welcome to TTA.

I apologize that I am not the OP but I'm gonna answer you anyway 'cos I'm bored.

You could start by meditating on what's not mythical about the killer combo of Jonah + whale? (I would say Noah's ark but we've belaboured Noah's ark all over the forum for about half a year so I think it's time for a change). Or do you contend that it is fact? We all know that a myth = a fairytale = a story that when you get down to the meat of it, *is not true*.

Basically, a myth is a lie hallowed by time. Now: you say scripture is *not* myth? Hum. How about Jesus. Man walks on water. Sans... you know, inflatable boots. Well I mean I contend that if there *were* inflatable boots then they were a striking omission from the story. Or will you tell me that all Jews of that time period wore inflatable boots and therefore the author of Luke wouldn't have thought it worth mentioning?

To which I reply: but then why would walking on water be taken as unusual? To which you would reply... it's not the walking on water, it's the fact that he did it during a thunderstorm. The make of boots they had available in those days wasn't suitable for anything except fine summer weather.

er... I seem to have got off track. Ah yes. How's about:... hmm I'm having trouble picking... man flying away in a chariot into the sky? You think that literally happened?

Do you think that:
a. a man was literally eaten by a fish, then sicked up three days later alive alive o?
b. a man walked on water that was actually deeper than his sandals... basically levitated over the water on the Sea of Galilee?
c. a man was picked up by some kinda cosmic taxi cab and whisked off to heaven?

If not, are these not clear examples of lies?
Thanks for the welcome and allowing me in your midst. I expect that we will have much to talk about and look forward to it.
Accepting your view of myth, it suggests that to be accepted as myth it must be proven a lie? This does not imply that something which is stated as fact and not physically verifiable qualifies as a lie. At most it can be questioned, especially if it is out of normal experience.
My take on this is basically – I hold this position with all information – is the source trustworthy, based on what I can verify? When proven lies are part of the make-up of the source, I would be very, very, hesitant to accept any information put forward as the truth.
Yes, I take your point that what is claimed in the Bible is sometimes not within our experience, and it can be questioned. Why would I thus accept it as truth? Is it not wishful thinking ?
Considering my prior statement re the trustworthiness of the source, and knowing that that which is stated as fact and is open to verification, has never disproved what is claimed in the Bible, my position is that I can accept it as trustworthy.
Consider archaeology. (See for instance Jericho which has a supernatural aspect to it). Not one finding has ever disproved fact stated as such in the Bible.
Another factor which contributes to my evaluation of a trustworthy source in opposition to “myth” would be that the “heroes” and stories relating to him/her are almost always heavily embellished. You find quite the contrary in the Bible. David ( a man after God’s heart) has a guy killed to get his wife, and also enter into an “affair” with Bathsheba. Hardly a strong case to support his “godliness”. The disciples that runs away when Jesus is taken by the soldiers and even disclaim any association with Jesus. The disciples that accepts Jesus as a “ghost” when He walks on water. Thomas doubting Jesus. Jesus seems surprised when He does not find fruit on a tree. The Israelites – God’s chosen people- making a golden calf despite physical evidence of God’s presence.
Another factor that one could consider is the accuracy of prophecy. Although I am not heavily into prophecy, there are prophecies relating to Egypt, Tyre, Israel etc that bears witness.
So yes, I accept that which is stated as fact in the Bible as such, including Elijah, etc.
That faith also plays a role, is not disputed. The question then is whether one should “ignore” fact. To the contrary, “ Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind (understanding).
In essence then, your skepticism can be understood, but it does not by implication make the Bible and its contents “myths”

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fromgenesis's post
08-08-2012, 01:44 AM
RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists
I will reply more fully later. For now: if my skepticism does not make the Bible false, you have to accept the counter proposition that your faith does not make it true Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
08-08-2012, 01:55 AM
RE: Scipture and science
(07-08-2012 02:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 11:20 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  I agree with your view that evolution is incompatible with Scripture.

Girly didn't say that.

But, I'm interested in why you think this.

Could you defend your assertion?
Hi. It would depend on your views on the Bible. Liberal scholars nowadays have plenty arguments why it is "compatible". Their apparent assumption is that science is truth and as the Bible is the Word of God, we must understand the Bible in terms of what is "scientifically" proven.
We have a number of problems: The Bible is for instance clear on creation itself and more specifically a six-day creation (even top non-Christian Hebrew scholars agree that the proper interpretation of the text does not allow for a different interpretation). This is totally in opposition to evolution that needs many millions of years to make "everything possible"
Creation itself - evolution accepts that life could originate from inorganic matter. This has never happened in even the most complex experiments. They had to use parts of a living cell to get some form of "life". This fact is even implied by Dawkins when he suggests (excuse if I smile, coming from a highly intelligent man such a Dawkins) that life was "seeded" on to earth by some very clever "aliens". Where they come from poses the same question - where did they come from.
The Bible clearly states that animals etc were made each after its own "kind". Despite bacteria adapting (such as that associated with HIV/Aids), they remain bacteria and do not change into anything else.
With reference to my previous post and lies, I am very skeptical of "science" and evolution as there are really too many proven lies (that I believe still find their way into textbooks) that contributes towards informed mistrust of information in this regard. (See i.e. Haeckel)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 02:09 AM
RE: Scipture and science
(08-08-2012 01:55 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 02:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Girly didn't say that.

But, I'm interested in why you think this.

Could you defend your assertion?
Hi. It would depend on your views on the Bible. Liberal scholars nowadays have plenty arguments why it is "compatible". Their apparent assumption is that science is truth and as the Bible is the Word of God, we must understand the Bible in terms of what is "scientifically" proven.
We have a number of problems: The Bible is for instance clear on creation itself and more specifically a six-day creation (even top non-Christian Hebrew scholars agree that the proper interpretation of the text does not allow for a different interpretation). This is totally in opposition to evolution that needs many millions of years to make "everything possible"
Creation itself - evolution accepts that life could originate from inorganic matter. This has never happened in even the most complex experiments. They had to use parts of a living cell to get some form of "life". This fact is even implied by Dawkins when he suggests (excuse if I smile, coming from a highly intelligent man such a Dawkins) that life was "seeded" on to earth by some very clever "aliens". Where they come from poses the same question - where did they come from.
The Bible clearly states that animals etc were made each after its own "kind". Despite bacteria adapting (such as that associated with HIV/Aids), they remain bacteria and do not change into anything else.
With reference to my previous post and lies, I am very skeptical of "science" and evolution as there are really too many proven lies (that I believe still find their way into textbooks) that contributes towards informed mistrust of information in this regard. (See i.e. Haeckel)

First of all, Evolution deals with HOW species came to be so diverse, not how LIFE originated.

Second. Micro Evolution is Macro on a smaller scale.

Third, Dawkins admitted it WAS a POSSIBILITY not that he BELIEVED IT.

Your ignorance is astounding.

How do you explain that we share D.N.A with all of the animals on earth? Of the fact that we have organs WE DON'T USE.

Either your God was unbelievebly RETARDED at creating those useless organs, or he didn't create them.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: