Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
Today at 03:10 PM
German nationalist party ...
Today at 01:11 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 03:13 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM
Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 01, 2025, 11:55 AM
News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM
Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds

 (Read 11404 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     OP - September 07, 2013, 12:48 AM
    http://mesk.stormloader.com/KindDef.html
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #1 - September 07, 2013, 01:04 AM
    The major flaw for creationists is that they assume the answer before asking the question.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #2 - September 07, 2013, 01:22 AM
    Most of this stuff comes from the Young Earth Creationist, basically Bible belt fundamentalist. Hybridisation leads to sterile offspring and I can't see how humans and pongids could interbreed. It's crazy.

    Besides the Bible is not a science textbook. It is a book of faith. Earlier scientists who were Christians didn't promote this. They accepted the scientific theory of the day.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #3 - September 07, 2013, 02:04 AM
    I'll be honest, it doesn't interest me. When there's a book which is supposed to be true and then is proven false, that's it for me. I get pissed when these people try to encroach on the lives and education of others.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #4 - September 07, 2013, 02:48 AM
    You are hearing this argument from Bible belt fundamentalists. There are Christians who believe the Bible is not a science textbook and don't try to shove it down the throats of nonbelievers. The Bible is a book of faith.

    What part of the planet are you from?
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #5 - September 07, 2013, 03:06 AM
    England. So which parts of the bible is to be taken in a metaphorical poetic sense and which are to be taken literally? Or is any of it literal?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #6 - September 07, 2013, 03:19 AM
    No the Bible is not the literal word of God. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages, which is why there are metaphors and allegory language in the OT.

    It's been almost 10 years since I visited England.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #7 - September 07, 2013, 03:32 AM
    So which parts of the bible is to be taken in a metaphorical poetic sense and which are to be taken literally?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #8 - September 07, 2013, 03:36 AM
    Pretty much a lot of the OT is metaphorical and there are some parts of the NT that are literal due to context.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #9 - September 07, 2013, 03:37 AM
    So which parts of the bible is to be taken in a metaphorical poetic sense and which are to be taken literally?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #10 - September 07, 2013, 04:13 AM
    The creation story in Genesis is mostly symbolic and the resurrection story is to be taken literally due to context.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #11 - September 07, 2013, 04:17 AM
    You just made that up. Or at least someone recently did. Don't tell me that the creation story was not taken completely literally for ages until people figured out that couldn't work.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #12 - September 07, 2013, 04:39 AM
    The creation story was never taken literally. I have a qoute from St. Augustine that says not to take the Bible literally. The Bible as the literal word of God is a recent invention from the Bible Belt Fundamentalists. The early Churches such as Catholicism and the Orthodox Church never promoted this. This is why the Catholic is open to evolution. Even the Lutheran sect I am with doesn't take the Bible literally, which is why we have no official statement on the age of the earth ( although I myself believe the earth is old )
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #13 - September 07, 2013, 04:49 AM
    Quote from: [left]C1981 on September 07, 2013, 04:39 AM
    The creation story was never taken literally.


    Really? Ever? You do realize that it was around for ages before St Augustine and before the Catholic church, right?
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #14 - September 07, 2013, 05:12 AM
    It was never taken literally until recently. Not even the Jews take their own Bible stories literally.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #15 - September 07, 2013, 05:14 AM
    The catholic church has come a long way in redefining the biblical texts. The simple truth of the matter is that the bible is supposed to be taken literally. I understand that's not the case for the most part, and I'm happy about this and hope islam follows suit, but not taking it as the word of god, even the inspired word of god, is a recent phenomenon. It came about because if it were to be taken literally in the face of all evidence to the contrary christianity would die. Pretty much the reason I see islam having no choice but to follow suit.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #16 - September 07, 2013, 05:18 AM
    Mind if I ask why you personally are a christian? I'm making the assumption you truly believe there is indeed a god but I can't see any reason to believe that one religion is more true than another religion. Or were you simply raised in a christian environment?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #17 - September 07, 2013, 05:19 AM
    Quote from: C1981 on September 07, 2013, 05:12 AM
    It was never taken literally until recently. Not even the Jews take their own Bible stories literally.


    What color is the sky in your world?
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #18 - September 07, 2013, 05:29 AM
    So, seriously, do you think the ancient Hebrews believed in evolution by natural selection? Or do you think they were just completely neutral and agnostic on the issue of creation, since they knew their book wasn't literal?
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #19 - September 07, 2013, 05:36 AM
    The Bible is not supposed to be taken literally. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests it was suppose to be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors during different eras using the literary writing style of the time. That is why there is a huge difference between the writing styles of the ot and nt.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #20 - September 07, 2013, 05:41 AM
    I came from a nominal Christian family. We only went to Church on sundays and that was it. Christianity was never mentioned in the home. We never prayed or kept religious paraphernelia except for one Bible in the home and even then we didn't read the Bible in the home. I am the only person who devout in my family.

    I am a Christian because I believe in the existence of God and Jesus is the savior. I partially believe there is some evidence that points a divine mind creating the earth mainly through quantum mechanics. As for the miracles and Jesus's resurrection I am a faithhead.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #21 - September 07, 2013, 05:41 AM
    Jesus Christ. I give up. Obviously the Bible was written, rewritten, and amended by countless ignorant old farts with lots of different views and agendas. And clearly, given the political climate and historical context in which some of the stuff was written, they needed to write in code using allegory, metaphor, and parable.

     But that's not my point. My point is that your claim that the Genesis creation story was"never" taken literally is completely ridiculous.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #22 - September 07, 2013, 05:41 AM
    If it isn't supposed to be taken literally what does the death of Jesus forgive us for if not original sin? If there is no original sin then we are the way god made us, the way we were intended to be. God came to earth as a mortal to sacrifice himself so he could forgive us for making us the way he did? Believe in Jesus and god will forgive you for the crime of being exactly how he made you to be?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #23 - September 07, 2013, 05:43 AM
    The ancient Jews didn't believe in evolution. I already stated the Bible is not a science textbook, it is a book of faith. The creation story itself is full of symbols and is a story that gives glory to God as the creator.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #24 - September 07, 2013, 05:46 AM
    Original sin is human nature. As for Jesus dying for our sins the nt does not spell it out all at once. Jesus uses parables to explain why he was sent down to earth.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #25 - September 07, 2013, 05:48 AM
    No one is saying it's a science book, but saying it was never supposed to be taken literally is quite simply not true. You've heard of Galileo right?

    And you actually made my point for me. Sin is human nature. This is how god made us. We need to be forgiven for a crime we never committed.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #26 - September 07, 2013, 05:53 AM
    We're running around in circles, but that's common in discussions with believers. Basically, your holy book morphs and changes and the interpretations shift to fit whatever you want it to say at the time. It's cool really, and if that's what you want to do, be my guest. I just think it's very hypocritical when you turn and criticize Muslims for doing the same thing.
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #27 - September 07, 2013, 05:58 AM
    Have to agree with HM on that one.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #28 - September 07, 2013, 07:20 AM
    Quote from: happymurtad on September 07, 2013, 05:41 AM
    Jesus Christ. I give up. Obviously the Bible was written, rewritten, and amended by countless ignorant old farts with lots of different views and agendas. And clearly, given the political climate and historical context in which some of the stuff was written, they needed to write in code using allegory, metaphor, and parable.

     But that's not my point. My point is that your claim that the Genesis creation story was"never" taken literally is completely ridiculous.

    Well, obviously some people did take it literally (and still do) but then others didn't (and are on record for it).

    Just as a random example (oodles of links and stuff online if you can be bothered) there's this.

    Quote
    Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science.  St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation.  In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.  In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation.  St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.  The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

    So, although they obviously had no conception of Darwinian evolution as such, they weren't total literalists either.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Science On Creationist Definition Of Kinds
     Reply #29 - September 07, 2013, 07:50 AM
    I often find that Christians claim compatibility with evolution simply because they are not young earthers, but the time scales involved are the least of the problems.
    To really have  a belief compatible with evolution you would also have to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, and you would probably also have to have an explanation for why your holy book repeats this common mythological idea.

    You would have to believe that Humans descend from other animals, entirely different species; species which do not have souls. That is unless you have an explanation for what happens to the souls of porcupines and slugs, or you think at some point in evolutionary time, souls were injected exclusively into hominids. But that would be denying the evidence that humans are qualitatively the same as other animals.

  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »