Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
How hard is it to move on to other scriptural interpretations that have you trying to figure out how many dinosaurs could fit on the Arc, denying the speed of light, radio-isotopic decay, the fossil record, and the genetic evidence of common descent?
Since we’re examing Biblical scripture and science...
Let me give you a hand...this is an excerpt from the Student Bible when it addresses “How to read Psalms”:
“The richest lessons from Psalms may come from particularly difficult poems you must read again and again until you begin to see what the author had in mind”.
I stumbled across an important Psalm: 36:9.
For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light we see light.
An explanation follows:
36:9 Light makes Light
By itself, light is invisible; and yet everything (italics)
is invisible until light strikes it. So it is with God:
we can’t see Him, but “in His light” (under His loving influence) we see and understand His love in all that surrounds us. God’s overwhelming generosity stands in complete contrast to the self-important plotting of wicked human beings.
How hard is it to understand everything (in italics) includes science? How hard is to understand “in all that surrounds us” includes science?
How hard is it to understand His creation and light is much greater than your understanding, of pretty much everything including scientific interpretations of origins, earth age, etc.?
The words “intelligent design” have been co-opted by charlatans out to destroy the foundation of science by their own admission.
That Students Bible is pretty bad at physics.
We can see light by itself, it is not just a medium for seeing other things. And some objects emit light as well, we don’t need for light to strike it to see that either.
That Students Bible is pretty bad at physics.
We can see light by itself, it is not just a medium for seeing other things. And some objects emit light as well, we don’t need for light to strike it to see that either.
But light is a medium of itself, without it you can’t see it.
You simply can’t see in total darkness.
If objects are emitting light, then they are by definition, illuminating themselves.
You hopelessly blew that both scientifically and spiritually.
Oh well.
I would say that evolution is God’s Omniscient design.
The words “intelligent design” have been co-opted by charlatans out to destroy the foundation of science by their own admission.
Riiiiight, so you’d be willing to acknowledge that evolution is “His omniscient design”, just not in science class, around other scientists, public schools, etc. etc. etc.
I got it.
Post # 40 to Toddsterpatriot “I have long maintained that if you look at the belief set of creationists they will almost invariably also (emphasis mine) believe in many other equally unsupportable beliefs (UFO’s, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial (ditto), Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc).
You put words in your own mouth. Now you want to parse your way out of what you so obviously did say. Great billowing clouds of smoke and deny, deny, deny. You didn’t say almost invariably, you said, “maybe once in a great while.” You didn’t say also, you said, “just maybe a few of them once in a while on Sunday afternoon might believe maybe, sorta just a little tiny bit of that stuff.”
”I stated my opinion that many Creationists are also believe a lot of other kooky . . .”
Support?! Don’t need no stinkin’ support! You can take my word for it . . . you better take my word for it, or I’ll send you galloping off on all kinds of sidetracks and fool’s errands. Besides, I’m an authority on everything.
”If you find their views embarrassing . . .”
Great billowing clouds of smoke, and in the midst of all that smoke you’ll find a sidetrack somewhere. This is getting embarrassing. People are watching. Quit the dancing or end this discussion.
Doin’ the Lindy Be, doin’ the Lindy Ba; stack it deep; move it out cheap.
”But again, if you are embarrassed by their views . . .”
Great billowing clouds of smoke. I’m tearing up. I don’t know if it’s from the smoke or from laughing so much. Quit the dancing or end this discussion.
Just because it is obscure to you, that doesn’t mean it is obscure to everyone.
”So you admit that looking for a post where you offer an example of a generic use of "creationist" or "creationism" (as you claimed you did) would be a fool's errand.”
Since you are determined to be uncomprehending to the point of lapsing into a comma, I’ll type real slow: Click on the “To” number at the bottom of the post. It’s right in between “Private Reply” and “View Relies.” That will take you back to the very beginning of this tête-a- tête. Now be real stupid at this point and complain that you clicked it (once) and it only took you back one post. Keep clicking (if you study real hard, you can find a way fiddle-jig that instruction too). We began by trading definitions and quarrels over definitions. Don’t protest. People were watching; they saw us. I’m not going to go galloping back and dredge up all our past posts for your amusement. That’s a fool’s errand. If you want that done, go find a fool.
”Just not the one [definition] usually used when writing in America today.”
If it was obsolete, then why did you cite it? Try to keep your stories straight.
”When you talked about gaining political dominance, I thought you meant in this discussion.”
Give me a little credit. I’ll try to be more clear.
By definition, poetry always means more than it says. This is not Cliff’s Notes for chem lab. Good Lord, man!
Well, duh, who doesn't?
You evos are the ones so hung up on the *literalist* label and always insisting that creationists are taking the whole Bible literally, even when we say that we aren't, that we recognize that parts like poetry aren't literal.
The evos are making the argument and chastising people for believing something they don't really believe after all. The evos are chastising people for believing something the evos THINK that they believe.
So, as usual, I'm going to ask for sources of of people or groups of people who don't recognize that all Scripture should not be taken *literally*, Or rather that there are people who demand that all be taken literally and don't recognize that there is stuff like poetry in it.
Pretty condescending of you, BTW.
Who doesn’t?
Anyone who thinks the Earth is young doesn’t consider the evidence, that is why they make up their own.
Some people seem to prefer that.
One can also click on the poster's name and then on "In Forum" to review their posts, which is what I did before. I just did it your way to make sure. You have not presented examples of a generic use of "creationism" or "creationist." Simple as that. Keep blustering if you want, or go find one if you think you did. Your choice.
If it was obsolete, then why did you cite it?
In the interests of honest and completeness. I find that anti-evolutionists have a habit of quoting only the parts of sources that appear to support their position, leaving out parts that contradict or modify it. It's not a habit I wish to emulate, and I didn't need to--the part about which definition is usual in America today made my point just fine.
All that is necessary for me to refute your assertion is to show one exception to your declaration. See Post #198: Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament. . . . . . Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003.
I also offered, as support showing some historical continuity, Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937 and The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary.
New, not so new, old. Simple as that.
Wrong. I never said there was no possible other meaning for "creationist." What I've said is that there is one overwhelmingly common meaning. One exception doesn't prove anything about what's overwhelmingly common.
Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament
Look at the end of that definition: in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament. Seems to me that supports my contention pretty well--I remember being surprised that you posted it. I was also surprised you posted the 1937 definition, which says "each new form was created by a direct exercise of the Divine power; opposed to evolution." Again, "creationism" = "special creationism."
And the 1828 definition you posted was for "creation" by itself. I'm not arguing that the term "creation" necessarily implies an anti-evolution, biblically literal belief; I'm saying that "creationism" does. I'm starting to think you just don't understand the basis for this discussion, since you're posting support for my position and claiming it supports yours. It's hard to know where to go with that.
What you represented to me was that I had produced no examples of a generic use of “creationism” or “creationist.” (Post # 313 - You have not presented examples of a generic use of "creationism" or "creationist.") I proved you wrong. Now you change the criteria. Figures.
Are you sure you’re not a Philadelphia Lawyer?
Since I don’t own any other dictionaries, I went on line to get some other definitions figuring you would probably come up with exactly what you did.
The first ten:
n belief that God created universe: the belief that God created the universe
. . . . . Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition
n a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.
. . . . . Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition - no change since 1880
n 1. the doctrine that God creates a new soul for every human being born.
n 2. the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of creation by God, specif. to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible.
. . . . . Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005
n 1. the doctrine that the world, life, and matter were created out of nothing by an omnipotent god, rather than that they evolved from other forms.
n 2. the theological doctrine that each human soul is created out of nothing for each individual born.
. . . . . The Wordsmyth English Dictionary
n Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
. . . . . The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
n 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
n 2. (sometimes cap.) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
n 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. Cf. traducianism.
. . . . . Infoplease Dictionary - Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
n 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
n 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
n 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
. . . . . Dictionary .com
n The literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis: “creationism denies the theory of evolution of species.”
. . . . . UltraLingua English Dictionary
skipping Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia – an encyclopedia, not a dictionary
(n.) The doctrine that a soul is specially created for each human being as soon as it is formed in the womb; -- opposed to traducianism.
. . . . . Online Plain Text English Dictionary - based on the public domain portion of "The Project Gutenberg Etext of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" which is in turn based on the 1913 US Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
n. The doctrine that a soul is specially created for each human being as soon as it is formed in the womb; -- opposed to traducianism.
. . . . . Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
I stopped at something called Rhymezone. It didn’t strike me as a real dictionary.
Now cast about. You should be able to come up with something else giving you more squirm room.
Stop the dancing or end this discussion.
I think I’ll end this discussion. You don’t or won’t see the difference between dictionary definition and common usage, so it’s fruitless to continue.
Think of it like this...
Millions of years giraffes had short necks. Then a baby giraffe was born. It had a mutated gene which had occurred at random. The gene caused it to have a very long neck.
This is one factor.
Then there was a great drought and all the vegetation on the ground died. It left only the leaves on the trees which could not be reached. Except by the giraffe with the long neck.
This factor is environment. It helps to determine which mutations are most helpful.
This giraffe with the mutated genes became strong and dominant because he ate the most. It bred and soon the next generation were studded with long necked giraffes. They also survived well in the environment and went on the breed. This continues over a long long time i.e millions of years until all giraffes have long necks. This is evolution.
So you see? without mutation this would never have been able to occur. Of course not all mutations result in evolution because some mutations are diseases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.