• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

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

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Why do you demand that we become bound, as you are bound, to your beliefs that Genesis is false, and that Adam and Eve never existed?
<NO ANSWER>

Of course you can't rationally answer for your hypocrisy. That's why I posed this question to you. Setting up liars and fools like yourself to need to stonewall against questions is one of my favorite kinds of TOL fun. :)

At any rate, as Right Divider and others often, and rightly, point out, you, being the Darwin cheerleader you are, start by being bound to your anti-Bible beliefs, and, voila! you end by being bound to your same anti-Bible beliefs.

I guarantee you, as long as you continue to react to my posts, and to litter up threads that I've started with your idiotic posts, you are, indeed, quite interested in having me continue to write posts in which I ridicule the stupidities you post.
🈚
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Of course you can't rationally answer for your hypocrisy. That's why I posed this question to you. Setting up liars and fools like yourself to need to stonewall against questions is one of my favorite kinds of TOL fun. :)

At any rate, as Right Divider and others often, and rightly, point out, you, being the Darwin cheerleader you are, start by being bound to your anti-Bible beliefs, and, voila! you end by being bound to your same anti-Bible beliefs.

I guarantee you, as long as you continue to react to my posts, and to litter up threads that I've started with your idiotic posts, you are, indeed, quite interested in having me continue to write posts in which I ridicule the stupidities you post.
🈚

Half past seven.

Otherwise, indubitably.

Well said that man and whatnot.

:e4e:
 

Bob Carabbio

New member
Best example of Poe's Law I've seen in a while, good job!

"Poe's Law"

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.

Just for those who weren't familiar with "Current Internet Culture".
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So, you're admitting that creation science isn't actually science now?

I've already defined science for you. No, I do not call my beliefs "science." That does not stop them being scientific.

Your turn: What is science?

While you're at it: What is the law?

We've got plenty of time. :up:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's hardly a "gambit". It's pretty obvious.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain. Genesis has poetry and allegory. How does that make it not an account of history?

Feel free to think it through. We have plenty of time.

Perhaps you can explain how there are two different genealogies if everything related is supposed to be 100% literal?

In Genesis?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
...it's entertaining to see people like Stripe have their head handed to them on a plate time and again.

Oh, you want to revisit that nutty idea? :darwinsm:

Here ya go: https://theologyonline.com/forum/po...tripe-s-best-evidence-based-posts?view=thread

One of the key exchanges:



:rotfl:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==


:mock:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​ Barbarian's revisionist history.

...there is more mass to the near side than there is to the far side.

Why do you think this is true?

And, as you've seen, he'll just invent some new story to cover anything that you throw at him.


You surprised me on this one, Stripe. I am forced to forfeit one point to you on this, since I did not know about the off-center mass spoken of in the article.

Barbarian has zero credibility, no ability to present a rational case and zero capacity for humility and admitting he was wrong.



:rotfl:
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
To do so would be to indulge in intellectual dishonesty and deny the evidence, so no thanks.

Something which you already do.

An example of someone being intellectually honest would be Alate One who was a former YEC herself and candidly admitted to having a crisis of faith when she could no longer reconcile the scientific evidence with her belief system. Thankfully she realized that having faith and accepting the evidence weren't mutually exclusive.

The fallacy here is assuming the following: Because Alate One has come to reject that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years, therefore she is correct.

Which A) assumes that Alate One was being intellectually honest by coming to the conclusion that the position that the earth is young is false, and B) begs the question that the YEC position is false.

Then what's the problem?

The problem is that you want EVERYTHING to be allegory. But no human being who ever existed speaks entirely in allegory, nor was the Bible intended to be read entirely as allegorical. It speaks in the way human beings speak, which is by using literal terms and figures of speech in their proper ways.

Noticing allegory in the creation account is hardly something I invented,

No one said it was...

it's been on record through the centuries

And somehow that makes the position correct?

Because that's an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy.

The problem is that when you reject the creation account in Genesis 1-2 as having actually occurred as described (which is done so by using figures of speech and literal terms side by side like we do today), the rest of the events in the Bible also go out the window as having actually happened.

and as many Christians can attest to, there's no cognitive dissonance with accepting an old earth/evolution with a belief in God.

And that makes them right?

Of course not.

That would be an appeal to popularity.

There's no such "science" that has done anything of the sort.

Why do you put science in quotes?

Special pleading won't get you anywhere in this discussion.

Science is defined as:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
("Science definition" in a Google search, the definition is provided by Oxford Languages."

Anything that fits that definition is by definition "science," even if it disagrees with your worldview.

If you're familiar with the scientific method

Defined as:

"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
(Again, quick search on Google for "scientific method definition")

Which most Christian Creationist Scientists use.

then you'd know why "creation science" is rightfully regarded as pseudoscientific bunk.

Already addressed by Stripe .

You don't start with an immutable conclusion that can't be disproved by unscientific methods and that disregards anything that doesn't fit in with it. That simply isn't science.

Have any of the scientists that have been cited over the years on TOL done this that you can prove? Or are you simply beating up a straw man to make yourself feel better?

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

I've seen plenty of debates on here and there hasn't been any compelling argument from YEC's

Argument from incredulity.

Just because YOU aren't convinced by an argument or position doesn't mean the position is invalid.

but there have been from those who actually know their stuff such as Alate One.

And an appeal to authority.

Frankly, there's only so many times where it's entertaining to see people like Stripe have their head handed to them on a plate time and again.

:yawn:

Try taking your YEC glasses off and learn something new yourself.

And finally a "tu quoque."
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
A talking serpent?

How about instead of jumping around, taking things out of context, let's start with Genesis 1 first. I mean, we are talking about the "CREATION" account, are we not? Genesis 3 is AFTER the creation account.

Your argument here has been "creation account (and Genesis in general) is allegory, not a literal account of history."

Make the argument, starting at the beginning.

Pulling stuff out of context will only cause problems for you.

The two differing ones in Matthew and Luke.

Are you referring to the Genealogies of Christ?

Spoiler
Because there are three of them, not two (or four, if you consider that the Gospel of Mark doesn't have one because Mark is symbolic of "Christ the Servant," and servants didn't usually have genealogies, and the third being in John, starting with God, which shows Christ the Son of God.

Matthew's genealogy is Christ the King (Lion of the Tribe of Judah). David was the king of Israrel, Christ will be King of Israel.

Mark's genealogy doesn't exist, as stated above, because servants don't have genealogies, which is symbolic of Christ the Servant.

Luke's genealogy shows Christ the Man, because Adam was the first man, and Christ became a man.

And John's genealogy describes Christ the Son of God, because He, being the Son of God, is God.

Why is this important?

Matthew = Lion.
Mark = Ox.
Luke = Man.
John = Eagle

Lions are symbolic of kings.
Oxen are symbolic of servants.
Man is symbolic of humanity.
And the eagle is symbolic of divinity.

All of these are representative of Who Christ is, God, Man, Servant, and King.


But back to the issue at hand here. What discrepancies are trying to point out, and more importantly, how does that invalidate Genesis as being an accurate record of events?

They can't both be correct if they're both to be read literally.

Generic accusations here won't do, Arthur.

You have to be more specific than that if you want

Well, you seem to insist on reading Genesis literally don't you?

I insist that you read Genesis plainly, reading what is literal as literal, and what is a figure of speech as a figure of speech, and what is allegory as allegory.

I do not insist that you read it woodenly literally. I do insist that you read the text as it was intended by the author of the text.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Or, the correct understanding, as many have pointed out, is that it's allegorical, your belief system notwithstanding.

Is the Bible being allegorical when it says that the sun is not a god, it's a light?

Hardly, I'm just not constrained to a blinkered belief system.

This from a single, subjective point of view.

I accept science,

Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

If you reject anything that conforms to that definition, regardless if it fits your belief system, then you don't, by definition, accept science.

which is far removed from the bunk that masquerades as such. If that's a problem for you then pfft...

Since no one here uses such "bunk," as you call it. Maybe you should consider more what we say, instead of dismissing it out of hand.

Eh, my days of being in a fundamentalist church are long gone thanks.

To reiterate my above question:

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

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I've already defined science for you. No, I do not call my beliefs "science." That does not stop them being scientific.

Your turn: What is science?

While you're at it: What is the law?

We've got plenty of time. :up:

In what way have you "defined science"?!

:AMR:

If you go along with any form of creationist "science", then they most assuredly are unscientific.

What is science? Here, read and educate yourself.

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

The Law?

Specify.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain. Genesis has poetry and allegory. How does that make it not an account of history?

Feel free to think it through. We have plenty of time.

Take off the YEC glasses and think it through yourself. The Bible is not a scientific textbook and nobody would have understood the complexities of the subject back then. Heck, they probably thought the world was ending anytime a thunderstorm happened. So how else is it going to describe creation if not through allegory?

In Genesis?

No, in Matthew and Luke.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Oh, you want to revisit that nutty idea? :darwinsm:

Here ya go: https://theologyonline.com/forum/po...tripe-s-best-evidence-based-posts?view=thread

One of the key exchanges:



:rotfl:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==


:mock:
wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
​ Barbarian's revisionist history.

Barbarian has zero credibility, no ability to present a rational case and zero capacity for humility and admitting he was wrong.



:rotfl:

Well, apart from the hysterical irony with your latter, he must assuredly does have credibility and has consistently and rationally shot down your "Darwinist" tropes and ignorance time and again. He knows his stuff. You don't.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Something which you already do.

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

The fallacy here is assuming the following: Because Alate One has come to reject that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years, therefore she is correct.

Which A) assumes that Alate One was being intellectually honest by coming to the conclusion that the position that the earth is young is false, and B) begs the question that the YEC position is false.

Alate One is one of the most consistent and honest posters on this site. She knows her stuff inside out 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.

The problem is that you want EVERYTHING to be allegory. But no human being who ever existed speaks entirely in allegory, nor was the Bible intended to be read entirely as allegorical. It speaks in the way human beings speak, which is by using literal terms and figures of speech in their proper ways.

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

And somehow that makes the position correct?

Because that's an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy.

The problem is that when you reject the creation account in Genesis 1-2 as having actually occurred as described (which is done so by using figures of speech and literal terms side by side like we do today), the rest of the events in the Bible also go out the window as having actually happened.

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

And that makes them right?

Of course not.

That would be an appeal to popularity.

Your insistence on the rigidly literal and a young earth makes you right?

Of course not.

Why do you put science in quotes?

Special pleading won't get you anywhere in this discussion.

Science is defined as:

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
("Science definition" in a Google search, the definition is provided by Oxford Languages."

Anything that fits that definition is by definition "science," even if it disagrees with your worldview.

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

Defined as:

"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
(Again, quick search on Google for "scientific method definition")

Which most Christian Creationist Scientists use.

Um, no they don't JR. 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.

Already addressed by Stripe .

:rotfl:

Have any of the scientists that have been cited over the years on TOL done this that you can prove? Or are you simply beating up a straw man to make yourself feel better?

No, but then none of the actual scientists on here have been young earth creationists or at least not when they've posted about science on here. Like Alate One

Argument from incredulity.

Just because YOU aren't convinced by an argument or position doesn't mean the position is invalid.

Doesn't mean it isn't either by the same token. There hasn't been anything approaching a compelling argument from the YEC camp. Juvenile garbage, childish snark etc when confronted with actual scientists who know their stuff is hardly convincing....

And an appeal to authority.

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

And finally a "tu quoque."

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

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Is the Bible being allegorical when it says that the sun is not a god, it's a light?

Isn't God light?

This from a single, subjective point of view.

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

Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

If you reject anything that conforms to that definition, regardless if it fits your belief system, then you don't, by definition, accept science.

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

Since no one here uses such "bunk," as you call it. Maybe you should consider more what we say, instead of dismissing it out of hand.

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

To reiterate my above question:

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

See above.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
How about instead of jumping around, taking things out of context, let's start with Genesis 1 first. I mean, we are talking about the "CREATION" account, are we not? Genesis 3 is AFTER the creation account.

Your argument here has been "creation account (and Genesis in general) is allegory, not a literal account of history."

Make the argument, starting at the beginning.

Pulling stuff out of context will only cause problems for you.

Honestly, I don't understand how you can't see allegory in it. An all powerful God could create the universe in a nanosecond and nor would He literally need to rest after creation. It makes sense that it's described in such a way and especially to people in the bronze age. Would be rather pointless to describe meteorological phenomena at such a time when nobody would have a clue what it was.

Are you referring to the Genealogies of Christ?

Spoiler
Because there are three of them, not two (or four, if you consider that the Gospel of Mark doesn't have one because Mark is symbolic of "Christ the Servant," and servants didn't usually have genealogies, and the third being in John, starting with God, which shows Christ the Son of God.

Matthew's genealogy is Christ the King (Lion of the Tribe of Judah). David was the king of Israrel, Christ will be King of Israel.

Mark's genealogy doesn't exist, as stated above, because servants don't have genealogies, which is symbolic of Christ the Servant.

Luke's genealogy shows Christ the Man, because Adam was the first man, and Christ became a man.

And John's genealogy describes Christ the Son of God, because He, being the Son of God, is God.

Why is this important?

Matthew = Lion.
Mark = Ox.
Luke = Man.
John = Eagle

Lions are symbolic of kings.
Oxen are symbolic of servants.
Man is symbolic of humanity.
And the eagle is symbolic of divinity.

All of these are representative of Who Christ is, God, Man, Servant, and King.

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

But back to the issue at hand here. What discrepancies are trying to point out, and more importantly, how does that invalidate Genesis as being an accurate record of events?

See above and above.

Generic accusations here won't do, Arthur.

You have to be more specific than that if you want

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

I insist that you read Genesis plainly, reading what is literal as literal, and what is a figure of speech as a figure of speech, and what is allegory as allegory.

I do not insist that you read it woodenly literally. I do insist that you read the text as it was intended by the author of the text.

Oh, you insist that do you? Who are you to define as to what should be read literally, taken as a figure of speech and allegory? Do please tell...

:plain:
 
Top