Biblical Inerrancy

1356715

Comments

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Denying reason and logic
    The point is that these are tools and weapons in a linguistic sense, but they do not usually bring truth or light when used to score points. “The entrance of thy word brings light..it brings understanding to the simple”
  • If you're able to disregard reason and logic, and disregard a plain reading of the text of the Bible in favour of your own interpolations, and you dismiss the interpretations of others because you proclaim them not to be Christians (which, I should say, constitutes bearing false witness and arguably taking the Lord's name in vain) then upon what basis can arguments be made that you would actually consider? Is it simply a case of duelling personal revelations?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    That's Bulverism too. I'm a Christian and
    Bulverism? I am the main recipient of it here but it is not a helpful accusation as it assumes truth can discovered by reason and logic. In fact, it is never so. These things are merely linguistic weapons. We are on similarly entrenched sides of a discussion and you surely assume that you are correct and I need convincing and vice versa.. and you are, by your own confession, decidedly a sceptic.

    Of what? The absolute truth of Bronze Age men's stories? No I'm not. I completely, fully, unquestioningly, faithfully believe that's what they are. By rationality and empiricism. Which you exclude. So you have to believe that the cosmos was made in six days six thousand years ago and that murdering rape victims is of the highest moral acts.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 13
    MPaul wrote: »
    The scriptures need no support from the likes of us.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Bulverism? I am the main recipient of it here but it is not a helpful accusation as it assumes truth can discovered by reason and logic. In fact, it is never so.

    That was fast. From "scriptures need no support from the likes of us" to "scriptures need us to make a bunch of irrational inferences" (slight paraphrase) in the space of a week.

    Of course if you're not bound by what scripture actually says and are not bound by rational thinking, I have to wonder whether scripture is needed at all. After all, it's just as easy to make irrational assertions without scripture as it is with it.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited January 13
    Y'all making a category error here: to quote Jonathan Swift...
    Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired

    (I could add the very next line here, for it is most pertinent)
    For in the Course of Things, Men always grow vicious before they become Unbelievers. . .
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Aye, we thrash when we drown.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited January 14
    I think it was James Barr (in his book Fundamentalism) who pointed out something informative about this debate. Belief in biblical inerrancy is different to belief in the literal truth of scripture. In order to maintain the belief that scripture does not err, then the means of interpretation may be literal, or may involve reading between the lines, or various types of rationalisation, or when these fail simply pointing out that God's thoughts are not our thoughts.

    Barr pointed out that inerrantists fight hard because they believe the loss of that tenet is fundamentally destructive of 'the faith once given'. Viewed from that perspective, MPaul's arguments are consistent, however logically inconsistent they may appear to be. Belief in inerrancy is seen as a fruit of a proper conversion, so folks who claim to be believers but do not hold to inerrancy are either in error (heretics) or unbelievers.

    After over 40 years of discussion with many people on this matter, I have concluded that there is no effective way of breaking through the defensive wall by argument. Those who are locked into inerrancy seem to need a personal epiphany to escape the lock.

    Which is why this topic is a Dead Horse. Endless argument without resolution.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    why this topic is a Dead Horse
    It is an interesting question and probably indicative of why almost no one who is a believer in the coherence and integrity of scripture posts here any more. They are dismissed by the natives as the equivalent of flat earthers. Yet look at some of the great believers of the past, they are anything but that. A closed mind functions on both sides of this argument.
  • Given that the Bible implies a flat earth in a number of places that may not be the best comparison.

    In any case many of the great believers of the past felt no necessity to hold the Genesis accounts as statements of historical fact. Augustine indeed is well known for telling people of for arguing with observable fact on the basis of wooden readings of scripture.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 14
    MPaul wrote: »
    why this topic is a Dead Horse
    It is an interesting question and probably indicative of why almost no one who is a believer in the coherence and integrity of scripture posts here any more. They are dismissed by the natives as the equivalent of flat earthers. Yet look at some of the great believers of the past, they are anything but that. A closed mind functions on both sides of this argument.

    It's because there is no coherence or integrity of scripture. There is no such thing as 'scripture' apart from as a generic term for religious texts. Nothing special. Nobody comes here because they know that. That it's indefensible.

    It's indefensible to say that murdering rape victims is love.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited January 14
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Our mediaeval (and indeed our ancients) forebears were capable of distinguishing the Bible being true from every word in it being factually correct. Unlike, say, present day anti-modern fundamentalists. I don't put fundamentalists on a par with the mediaevals, I put them far lower as they don't have the excuse of a lack of knowledge; their position is one of wilful denial of evidence.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Our mediaeval (and indeed our ancients) forebears were capable of distinguishing the Bible being true from every word in it being factually correct. Unlike, say, present day anti-modern fundamentalists. I don't put fundamentalists on a par with the mediaevals, I put them far lower as they don't have the excuse of a lack of knowledge; their position is one of wilful denial of evidence.
    So you insist that literal believers reject science and knowledge but how certain are you actually of that knowledge you so confidently asserts supersedes the Bible?
    You merely reinforce how entrenched each side is here.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Mediæval Christians believed the Earth to be spherical. It's not a mediæval belief but something from an earlier era. Typically the Bronze or early Iron Age. A standard Middle Eastern cosmology of this era would be a sort of bubble world, with a flat earth under a dome on which various celestial objects were mounted. There was usually water above the dome and below the flat earth as well.

    Interesting historical footnote: what got Galileo into so much trouble with the Inquisition wasn't his advocacy of heliocentrism (which they regarded as a serious wrong but not a grave sin) but rather the implication of the Galiean model that the Earth was in motion. This contradicted several Biblical passages that stated the Earth was on fixed foundations and could not be moved. Eppur si muove.
    MPaul wrote: »
    So you insist that literal believers reject science and knowledge but how certain are you actually of that knowledge you so confidently asserts supersedes the Bible?

    At the very least one would think NASA would have noticed "the vault of the sky" [NIV] / "firmament of the heaven" [KJV] when they tried to launch rockets through it. Or maybe NASA is just faking it!!!
  • MPaul wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Our mediaeval (and indeed our ancients) forebears were capable of distinguishing the Bible being true from every word in it being factually correct. Unlike, say, present day anti-modern fundamentalists. I don't put fundamentalists on a par with the mediaevals, I put them far lower as they don't have the excuse of a lack of knowledge; their position is one of wilful denial of evidence.
    So you insist that literal believers reject science and knowledge but how certain are you actually of that knowledge you so confidently asserts supersedes the Bible?
    You merely reinforce how entrenched each side is here.

    Why do you put more faith in a collection of documents written about the creator than in what the creator has written by his own hand in the world around us? Treating the Bible as a science textbook is to make a grave error as to its purpose.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    You also generalise hugely here, lumping all ‘fundamentalists’ together.
    By great Christians of the past I was thinking of people such as Booth and Wesley and Wigglesworth. People who lived out what they believed and preached a genuine faith. There are many other current ones as well. I doubt you have heard of Fructenbaum and Prasch, Jewish Christians who have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible, read Greek and Hebrew and believe every word and Chuck Missler recently deceased who was a technological buff as well as a literal Bible believer.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's indefensible to say that murdering rape victims is love.
    No one is saying that Martin54 and of course you refuse to seriously revisit the question of coherence and consistency. I too might be very sceptical if I came out of the Herbert W cult.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Mediæval Christians believed the Earth to be spherical. It's not a mediæval belief but something from an earlier era. Typically the Bronze or early Iron Age. A standard Middle Eastern cosmology of this era would be a sort of bubble world, with a flat earth under a dome on which various celestial objects were mounted. There was usually water above the dome and below the flat earth as well.

    Interesting historical footnote: what got Galileo into so much trouble with the Inquisition wasn't his advocacy of heliocentrism (which they regarded as a serious wrong but not a grave sin) but rather the implication of the Galiean model that the Earth was in motion. This contradicted several Biblical passages that stated the Earth was on fixed foundations and could not be moved. Eppur si muove.
    MPaul wrote: »
    So you insist that literal believers reject science and knowledge but how certain are you actually of that knowledge you so confidently asserts supersedes the Bible?

    At the very least one would think NASA would have noticed "the vault of the sky" [NIV] / "firmament of the heaven" [KJV] when they tried to launch rockets through it. Or maybe NASA is just faking it!!!

    More mockery..as if a literal reading takes no account of figures of speech. But..if it makes someone feel superior.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's indefensible to say that murdering rape victims is love.
    No one is saying that Martin54 and of course you refuse to seriously revisit the question of coherence and consistency. I too might be very sceptical if I came out of the Herbert W cult.

    Why aren't you saying it? God said it. It must be love.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's indefensible to say that murdering rape victims is love.
    No one is saying that Martin54 and of course you refuse to seriously revisit the question of coherence and consistency. I too might be very sceptical if I came out of the Herbert W cult.

    Why aren't you saying it? God said it. It must be love.
    All you need..right?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Our mediaeval (and indeed our ancients) forebears were capable of distinguishing the Bible being true from every word in it being factually correct. Unlike, say, present day anti-modern fundamentalists. I don't put fundamentalists on a par with the mediaevals, I put them far lower as they don't have the excuse of a lack of knowledge; their position is one of wilful denial of evidence.
    So you insist that literal believers reject science and knowledge but how certain are you actually of that knowledge you so confidently asserts supersedes the Bible?
    You merely reinforce how entrenched each side is here.

    Why do you put more faith in a collection of documents written about the creator than in what the creator has written by his own hand in the world around us? Treating the Bible as a science textbook is to make a grave error as to its purpose.
    Straw man city here we come. Unless serious discussion resumes I am bowing out.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    By great Christians of the past I was thinking of people such as Booth and Wesley and Wigglesworth.

    Ah, you mean the recent past.
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    why this topic is a Dead Horse
    It is an interesting question and probably indicative of why almost no one who is a believer in the coherence and integrity of scripture posts here any more. They are dismissed by the natives as the equivalent of flat earthers. Yet look at some of the great believers of the past, they are anything but that. A closed mind functions on both sides of this argument.

    It's because there is no coherence or integrity of scripture. There is no such thing as 'scripture' apart from as a generic term for religious texts. Nothing special. Nobody comes here because they know that. That it's indefensible.

    It's indefensible to say that murdering rape victims is love.

    Of course it's indefensible, but how do you come by such a high level of confidence about the lack of coherence or integrity? I take you've eliminated all possibility of it being located somewhere other than where you've looked? What do you suppose Jesus was talking about on the road to Emmaus?
    Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
    They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?"

    Is it impossible that Christ might yet have a thing or two to teach us about how to read Scripture?
  • W Hyatt wrote: »

    Is it impossible that Christ might yet have a thing or two to teach us about how to read Scripture?
    Pretty sure he hasn't taught MPaul anything. Unless...

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 15
    MPaul wrote: »
    More mockery..as if a literal reading takes no account of figures of speech. But..if it makes someone feel superior.

    It's not mockery, it's ridicule. Which, as the word implies, is the proper response to the ridiculous. Like saying that a literal reading can take account of figures of speech, which is literally impossible. If you're taking account of figures of speech then you're not reading literally, you're literally reading figuratively.

    But sloppy grammar is nothing compared to sloppy history, like falsely describing an idea you want to deride for being primitive and superstitious as "mediæval". Donald Trump did this recently when he described walls and wheels as mediæval, despite the fact that both pre-date the Middle Ages by millennia. It's a sloppy locution and I'll mock and/or ridicule it whenever I come across it. If we're not allowed to correct obvious falsehoods, what are we doing here?
  • MPaul wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The Bible implies a flat earth
    The fact that you believe that is interesting. You would put fundamentalism on a par with medieval superstition ..kind of illustrates my point.

    Our mediaeval (and indeed our ancients) forebears were capable of distinguishing the Bible being true from every word in it being factually correct. Unlike, say, present day anti-modern fundamentalists. I don't put fundamentalists on a par with the mediaevals, I put them far lower as they don't have the excuse of a lack of knowledge; their position is one of wilful denial of evidence.
    So you insist that literal believers reject science and knowledge but how certain are you actually of that knowledge you so confidently asserts supersedes the Bible?
    You merely reinforce how entrenched each side is here.

    Why do you put more faith in a collection of documents written about the creator than in what the creator has written by his own hand in the world around us? Treating the Bible as a science textbook is to make a grave error as to its purpose.
    Straw man city here we come. Unless serious discussion resumes I am bowing out.
    The problem is, you want to keep you cake and eat it too. You give outrageous, extra-biblical interpretations and not only expect people to buy into it, but insult the believers who read the same text and cannot see the same thing as you.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    He knows this, but his whole belief system is such a house of cards that removing a single piece will bring the entire edifice clattering down.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @W Hyatt

    The lack of integrity is in the sense of wholeness, not it's figurative meaning. I wouldn't dream of questioning the honesty of its creators and custodians at their unenlightened worst. And interpreters. Above all Jesus. But Jesus' methods aren't ours. They were for Him and His time, none better. They just can't work now.

    Jesus actually has nothing to teach us how to interpret scripture. There is no technique He perfectly legitimately used that we can use.

    We need figurative integrity to admit that.

    As for coherence... that's what we paid Jesus for. Even when it isn't there.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    He knows this, but his whole belief system is such a house of cards that removing a single piece will bring the entire edifice clattering down.

    I think it would be more accurate to say he's made the deliberate choice that his belief system is a house of cards. Blogger Fred Clark discusses the crisis of faith precipitated in an acquaintance of his when confronted with a wall older than he believed the universe to be.
    The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe — the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life — crumbles into meaninglessness.

    My classmate's church taught him that their supposedly "literal" reading of Genesis 1 was the necessary complement to their "literal" reading of the rest of the Bible, which they regarded as the entire and only basis for their faith. His belief in 6-day, young-earth creationism was not merely some disputable piece of adiaphora, such as …

    Well, for such fundamentalists there is no "such as." This is why they cling to every aspect of their belief system with such desperate ferocity. Should even the smallest piece be cast into doubt, they believe, the entire structure would crumble like the walls of Jericho. If dancing is not a sin, or if the authorship of Isaiah turns out to involve more than a single person at one time, or if the moons of Jupiter present a microcosm that suggests a heliocentric solar system, then suddenly nothing is true, their "whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses."

    This was, roughly, what was going on in my poor classmate's head as he stared at those rocks, which had been carefully put in place by some ancient citizen of Jericho thousands of years before the tiny literal god of the fundies had gotten around to creating the universe.

    Bolds added by me. Italics from the original.

    Eventually Clark and others convinced their friend that belief does not necessarily have to be a house of cards. Read the rest for context. It's a good story.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe — the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life — crumbles into meaninglessness

    Ridicule? Mockery? What diff but feel free if it floats your boat.

    The statement above, Let us apply it to a different sort of fundamentalism. Let’s apply it to ..evolution, the sacred cow of humanism. The slightest challenge to the edifice of belief that it supports evokes the vitriol of pretty well the whole of academia.

    If you conclude as many do (over 40% of Americans) that there was no evolutionary process then what? It is the only show in town for secularists.

    Its adherents are at least as fundamentalist as the proponents of the Ussher chronology.

    Evolution claims observable evidence in the rocks and that same evidence is claimed for creationism.
    Evolution requires deep time. Yet we have evidence from dinosaur fossils of of organic material proving they could not possibly be 68 million years old.
    We have abiogenesis..life comes from life in every possible scenario.
    We have the proven impossibility of the probability game.
    We have the Cambrian explosion with nothing beneath it
    and we have the absolute proof of design in creation..well, sure looks like it was designed.

    Enjoy your fundamentalism.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 15
    MPaul wrote: »
    Let’s apply it to ..evolution, the sacred cow of humanism. The slightest challenge to the edifice of belief that it supports evokes the vitriol of pretty well the whole of academia.

    I'm pretty sure evolution supports only the vitriol of the life sciences. Physics gets by just fine without having to refer to descent with modification.
    MPaul wrote: »
    If you conclude as many do (over 40% of Americans) that there was no evolutionary process then what? It is the only show in town for secularists.

    And the only show in town for understanding the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I'm pretty sure that MRSA resists β-lactam antibiotics just the same in the 40% of Americans who don't believe species can develop new traits over time as in the 60% of Americans who do, which mostly demonstrates that science is not a popularity contest.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Evolution requires deep time.

    I'm guessing you're not going to be convinced by the fact that the observable universe is bigger than a few thousand light years? For example, if the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away we wouldn't be able to see it if the universe is any newer than 2.5 million years old.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    More mockery..as if a literal reading takes no account of figures of speech. But..if it makes someone feel superior.

    It's not mockery, it's ridicule. Which, as the word implies, is the proper response to the ridiculous. Like saying that a literal reading can take account of figures of speech, which is literally impossible. If you're taking account of figures of speech then you're not reading literally, you're literally reading figuratively.

    I have in the past made the point that Protestant Christians are not committed to a 'dumb wooden' kind of literalism. Back in the Reformation era the discussion was in terms of the so-called "fourfold sense" interpretation, the 'literal' being one of those senses, not in opposition to the figurative in general, but in opposition to the other senses including for example the 'allegorical'.

    In a passage I've repeatedly quoted, Tyndale makes plain on the one hand that the 'literal sense' is the key and most important 'sense' of interpretation, and on the other hand that of course as normal human use of language the Bible includes all kinds of figures of speech and other literary devices like different genres, which you are meant to use your brain to work out.

    As far as I can discover (and I actually possess a copy of the original 'Fundamentals') the early 20thC fundamentalists actually intended that classic Reformation position and the more dumb wooden literalism seen later is an aberration even in terms of the Fundamentals.

    MPaul's comment makes perfect sense in terms of that earlier use of the concept of literal interpretation. I do agree that it has become confusing now because of changes in linguistic usage, and it is often necessary to explain the point to moderns. But Croesos I know is aware of this point from previous threads on the Ship, and I'm a bit surprised to find him having apparently forgotten it....

  • edited January 15
    MPaul wrote: »
    Evolution claims observable evidence in the rocks and that same evidence is claimed for creationism.
    Evolution requires deep time. Yet we have evidence from dinosaur fossils of of organic material proving they could not possibly be 68 million years old.
    We have abiogenesis..life comes from life in every possible scenario.
    We have the proven impossibility of the probability game.
    We have the Cambrian explosion with nothing beneath it
    and we have the absolute proof of design in creation..well, sure looks like it was designed.

    Enjoy your fundamentalism.
    Please provide data for your claim of dinosaur organic material. Not aware of this.

    The Cambrian explosion. Your claim that there's nothing before it is not objectively true. I saw my first Pre-Cambrian fossils when I was a little boy in the Canadian Shield rocks of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This claim is simply false on the face of it.

    I also saw the evidence of two ancient continents colliding: the Churchill and Superior to raise the mountains that the Pre-Cambrian mountain range which eroded into the Canadian Shield - the roots of mountains. In the areas north of there, I saw glacial striations which are the grooves and scratches in the rock where glaciers had pushed small rocks across the surface of bedrocks: and there were up to 4 different directions the striations showed.

    Later, I saw the evidence from the mid-Atlantic ridge where the sea floor continues to split and push the Americas and Europe/Africa apart. The molten rock stores the direction that the magnetic north and south poles point at the time. The magnetic poles move at steady rates, punctuated with reversals. This is stored in the rocks.

    Unless you think God put fossils on the tops of mountains in limestone and shale which show the remains of coral within, you have to understand that this material was sea floor at one time, and because we can still see the rate at which these rise, we know how long they've been doing it.

    Finally, I was in Newfoundland, east coast and saw the remains of a prior split from Scotland/Ireland and the samples of rocks from the current one and how obvious it is that these land masses were together, apart and together again.

    I'll just note that there is grandeur and wonderful life in this understanding of creation. Where it isn't confined to a few years, but shows eons of change, over time, with most wondrous forms of life, which show a connection to each other, whether worms with their segments tagmosed in to complex insect body parts or HOX genes which we share with horseshoe crabs as DNA's construction of tissue is regulated by other genes. I might urge you to read and study much more broadly, a little biology would greatly help, or even exposure of the breeding methods of gardeners and farmers.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 15
    Crœsos wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Let’s apply it to ..evolution, the sacred cow of humanism. The slightest challenge to the edifice of belief that it supports evokes the vitriol of pretty well the whole of academia.

    I'm pretty sure evolution supports only the vitriol of the life sciences. Physics gets by just fine without having to refer to descent with modification.
    MPaul wrote: »
    If you conclude as many do (over 40% of Americans) that there was no evolutionary process then what? It is the only show in town for secularists.

    And the only show in town for understanding the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I'm pretty sure that MRSA resists β-lactam antibiotics just the same in the 40% of Americans who don't believe species can develop new traits over time as in the 60% of Americans who do, which mostly demonstrates that science is not a popularity contest.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Evolution requires deep time.

    I'm guessing you're not going to be convinced by the fact that the observable universe is bigger than a few thousand light years? For example, if the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away we wouldn't be able to see it if the universe is any newer than 2.5 million years old.

    Ah, but Adam and Eve had belly buttons, so there.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Evolution claims observable evidence in the rocks and that same evidence is claimed for creationism.
    Evolution requires deep time. Yet we have evidence from dinosaur fossils of of organic material proving they could not possibly be 68 million years old.
    We have abiogenesis..life comes from life in every possible scenario.
    We have the proven impossibility of the probability game.
    We have the Cambrian explosion with nothing beneath it
    and we have the absolute proof of design in creation..well, sure looks like it was designed.

    Enjoy your fundamentalism.
    Please provide data for your claim of dinosaur organic material. Not aware of this.

    The Cambrian explosion. Your claim that there's nothing before it is not objectively true. I saw my first Pre-Cambrian fossils when I was a little boy in the Canadian Shield rocks of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This claim is simply false on the face of it.

    I also saw the evidence of two ancient continents colliding: the Churchill and Superior to raise the mountains that the Pre-Cambrian mountain range which eroded into the Canadian Shield - the roots of mountains. In the areas north of there, I saw glacial striations which are the grooves and scratches in the rock where glaciers had pushed small rocks across the surface of bedrocks: and there were up to 4 different directions the striations showed.

    Later, I saw the evidence from the mid-Atlantic ridge where the sea floor continues to split and push the Americas and Europe/Africa apart. The molten rock stores the direction that the magnetic north and south poles point at the time. The magnetic poles move at steady rates, punctuated with reversals. This is stored in the rocks.

    Unless you think God put fossils on the tops of mountains in limestone and shale which show the remains of coral within, you have to understand that this material was sea floor at one time, and because we can still see the rate at which these rise, we know how long they've been doing it.

    Finally, I was in Newfoundland, east coast and saw the remains of a prior split from Scotland/Ireland and the samples of rocks from the current one and how obvious it is that these land masses were together, apart and together again.

    I'll just note that there is grandeur and wonderful life in this understanding of creation. Where it isn't confined to a few years, but shows eons of change, over time, with most wondrous forms of life, which show a connection to each other, whether worms with their segments tagmosed in to complex insect body parts or HOX genes which we share with horseshoe crabs as DNA's construction of tissue is regulated by other genes. I might urge you to read and study much more broadly, a little biology would greatly help, or even exposure of the breeding methods of gardeners and farmers.

    "Soft tissue, cell and molecular preservation

    Because of their antiquity, an unexpected exception to the alteration of an organism's tissues by chemical reduction of the complex organic molecules during fossilization has been the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, including blood vessels, and the isolation of proteins and evidence for DNA fragments.[10][11][12][13] In 2014, Mary Schweitzer and her colleagues reported the presence of iron particles (goethite-aFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from dinosaur fossils. Based on various experiments that studied the interaction of iron in haemoglobin with blood vessel tissue they proposed that solution hypoxia coupled with iron chelation enhances the stability and preservation of soft tissue and provides the basis for an explanation for the unforeseen preservation of fossil soft tissues.[14] However, a slightly older study based on eight taxa ranging in time from the Devonian to the Jurassic found that reasonably well-preserved fibrils that probably represent collagen were preserved in all these fossils, and that the quality of preservation depended mostly on the arrangement of the collagen fibers, with tight packing favoring good preservation.[15] There seemed to be no correlation between geological age and quality of preservation, within that timeframe." Wiki
  • Above: "Ah, but Adam and Eve had belly buttons, so there."

    Three things worthy to learn from Genesis:
    1. Never listen to a talking snake.
    2. People have been suckers for ever: "eat this fruit, it's really Great!"
    3. Capitalists are scum, many of them are talking snakes.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Please provide data for your claim of dinosaur organic material. Not aware of this.

    This is probably what's being referred to. Note that the organic materials in question are small (about a dozen amino acids long) fragments of collagen, not Fred Flintstone's giant rack of ribs as it has become popular for creationists to characterize the finds. It doesn't really relate that strongly to natural selection applied to descent with modification (a.k.a. "evolution") but it does tell us something new about the long term durability of short-chain proteins under certain circumstances. The details of how it works is, naturally, of intense interest to anyone working in that field right now. There is, however, an oblique evolutionary tie-in to the research:
    The three protein fragments originally recovered most closely resembled the col­lagen found in living alligators and other reptiles. But the new data show that B. canadensis collagen was a better match to that of birds. That’s just what paleontologists, who consider birds to be descendants of extinct dinosaurs, would predict.

    Part of the problem is that inerrantists see any revision of a theory in light of new data as proof that the whole theory is invalid. This proceeds from the whole concept of inerrancy. Scientists, on the other hand, see new and hitherto unexplained data as an opportunity to do some work.

  • I have in the past made the point that Protestant Christians are not committed to a 'dumb wooden' kind of literalism.
    If you limit Protestant Christian to people who are not wooden literalists, because Protestant Christianity is where modern fundamentalism was born.

  • Martin54 wrote: »

    Ah, but Adam and Eve had belly buttons, so there.
    Belly buttons are because of the Fall! You big dummy!

  • lilbuddha wrote: »

    I have in the past made the point that Protestant Christians are not committed to a 'dumb wooden' kind of literalism.
    If you limit Protestant Christian to people who are not wooden literalists, because Protestant Christianity is where modern fundamentalism was born.

    Born in one, perhaps 2 specific countries. Among weird little sects which later
    grew, tumour-like, on the carcass of intellectual Christianity. Which refuses all remedies and healing from its heresy.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm guessing you're not going to be convinced by the fact that the observable universe is bigger than a few thousand light years? For example, if the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away we wouldn't be able to see it if the universe is any newer than 2.5 million years old.

    The YEC god is a charlatan.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    [/quote]The YEC god is a charlatan.[/quote]

    Hmm, speaking of charlatanism. The Catholic God..Eucharistic wafer in a monstrance. Is the Orthodox God any different? The God of 'Holy' icons. Or the Anglican God? Liturgical claptrap by priests in drag doesn't bring anyone closer to the Biblical God.


  • Ah, ignorance decorating bigotry - the hallmark of the fundamentalist.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    My first thought was that MPaul was playing a "you're being nasty about my tribe so I'll be nasty about yours" but then realised that not many people posting on this thread are actually Catholic or Orthodox.

    I conclude therefore he's serious.
  • @MPaul
    MPaul wrote: »
    Hmm, speaking of charlatanism. The Catholic God..Eucharistic wafer in a monstrance.
    Can you unpick this a bit more please?
    Is the Orthodox God any different? The God of 'Holy' icons.

    Or the Anglican God? Liturgical claptrap by priests in drag doesn't bring anyone closer to the Biblical God.
    And what you mean by this too, please?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm guessing you're not going to be convinced by the fact that the observable universe is bigger than a few thousand light years? For example, if the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million light years away we wouldn't be able to see it if the universe is any newer than 2.5 million years old.

    The YEC god is a charlatan.

    Aye, He makes a cosmos that by every rational, empirical observation that has been, can and will ever be made is 13.7 ga old and refutes it with a Bronze Age myth - that is admittedly qualitatively better than any other - and murderously invites us to dare to not believe that. Worse the myth is actually true and all of reality is a lie.

    As well as the killer par excellence, He is the liar par excellence, worse than Ian Paisley's IRA; 'They might be murderers, but they're not liars'.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Aye, He makes a cosmos that by every rational, empirical observation that has been, can and will ever be made is 13.7 ga old.....

    Not sure about that. Certainly that's our present knowledge but will it always remain so? When I was a mere lad, the estimated age varied from about what it is now thought to be to nearly double that at one extreme, and at the other to a mere 5 billion or so. I'm prepared to allow for the possibility of further best estimates as more data comes in, as methods of calculation differ and so forth. Whatever it is is certainly much more than 6,000 years.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    While I accept the 13.6 or so billion years on an intellectual basis, it's just so great as to be beyond my comprehension - as is the number of stars per galaxy and then the number of galaxies in the universe.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »

    I have in the past made the point that Protestant Christians are not committed to a 'dumb wooden' kind of literalism.
    If you limit Protestant Christian to people who are not wooden literalists, because Protestant Christianity is where modern fundamentalism was born.

    Point is that Protestant Christianity started out using very similar interpretation to the RC scholars. The distinctive point was that they recognised that using that 'fourfold sense' interpretation flatly and equally on all texts could lead, and had led, to questionable interpretations. So from a Protestant viewpoint the 'literal' sense was the governing sense, keeping interpretation from getting out of balance - you could by all means use allegorical and similar interpretations, but they needed to be compatible with the more everyday 'literal sense'.

    And back then the 'literal sense' meant the kind of thing Tyndale stated - I've sometimes described it as 'reading the text like an ordinary book'. To Tyndale and Reformation scholars 'literal' therefore included that as ordinary use of language the language of the Bible employed figures of speech, different literary genres, and other such devices to make its point. Protestant Christians should be committed to that kind of ordinary interpretation and should reject 'dumb wooden' literalism.

    The excessive literalism of modern fundamentalism is an aberration with which Reformers like Tyndale and Calvin would have disagreed, and represents a later shift in the meaning of the word. And it seems to have originated as a badly thought through reaction to proponents of evolution who deliberately insisted on such literalism in order to undermine the Bible. Unfortunately some Christians thought it necessary to defend the excessive literalism as the meaning of Scripture, rather than do the work Tyndale implied as necessary in unravelling the literary diversity of the text.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Aye, He makes a cosmos that by every rational, empirical observation that has been, can and will ever be made is 13.7 ga old.....

    Not sure about that. Certainly that's our present knowledge but will it always remain so? When I was a mere lad, the estimated age varied from about what it is now thought to be to nearly double that at one extreme, and at the other to a mere 5 billion or so. I'm prepared to allow for the possibility of further best estimates as more data comes in, as methods of calculation differ and so forth. Whatever it is is certainly much more than 6,000 years.

    I am sure about that to three significant figures: 13.799±0.021 billion. Call it 13.8 There is no rational let alone empirical reason to doubt that. The multiverse is, of course, eternal.
Sign In or Register to comment.