Can a "True Christian" Believe in the Water Cycle?

[DeepShadow]

No, the "primitive nature of bronze-age humans" is the very thing I was disputing. The side of the argument that depends on the child/adult metaphors - to shore up the false idea that bronze-age humans couldn't have coped with the facts - is yours.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I was trying to explain that this is NOT my position. You assumed that it was, and that assumption (that this was my position) was false.

My post made no mention of brain size. When I said that bronze-age humans had brains indistinguishable from ours I was referring to their entire anatomical structure, not just size. I don't believe you will find any evidence for significant changes in brain structure over the last few thousand years.

I would agree with this. However, I also explained that people with indistinguishable brains can have vastly different intellectual capacities, based on the presence or absence of formal education. Do you believe that Bronze Age humans were able to reach the Formal Operational level of cognitive development, despite the lack of formal education? This would be quite a feat, considering cross-cultural studies of modern humans.

 

[DeepShadow]

Problem being that there are now millions of people around the world who are actively trying to inhibit scientific advancement because they prefer a literal interpretation of these parables, and see many of them as being contradicted by scientific theories.

Yes, I agree that their preference for a literal interpretation is a problem.:yes:

 

[metis]

There's a general tendency is each culture to not really that well understand that differences in culture tend to lead to difference in approaches. When it comes to the Abrahamic scriptures, these were written by western Asians using a very subjective approach, whereas we here in the modern west tend to use a much more objective approach. Therefore, if we read these scriptures as if it were written by modern westerners, we're pretty much going to miss certain nuances.

The creation accounts almost assuredly were not written to be objective history for a variety of reasons. OTOH, they do contain some of our basic values and morals that are pretty easy to overlook if we're barking up the wrong tree by insisting they're history.

 

[johnhanks]

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I was trying to explain that this is NOT my position. You assumed that it was, and that assumption (that [bronze-age humans couldn't have coped with the facts] was my position) was false.

If I've misread you I apologise, but the first post of yours that I responded to seemed to be predicated on the idea that Moses - a Bronze Age human, if he existed - would have been "VERY confused by the more scientifically robust answer" - i.e. he couldn't have coped with the facts.

Do you believe that Bronze Age humans were able to reach the Formal Operational level of cognitive development, despite the lack of formal education? This would be quite a feat, considering cross-cultural studies of modern humans.

Sadly, Piaget wasn't around to conduct tests on Bronze Age children. It remains the case that there is no evidence of significant changes in brain organisation since the Bronze Age (which is less than 200 generations ago), and no reason to believe that Bronze Age brains had a built-in ceiling to cognitive development that ours have breached. Do you really believe that Bronze Age humans could not have understood the germ theory of disease?

 

[rusra02]

Talking Snakes: "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"~ Genesis 3:1

Bats are Birds: "These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."~ Leviticus 11:13

Flat Earth: And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.~ Revelation 7:1

The Bible clearly shows there was an evil spirit creature making it appear the serpent was talking. (Revelation 12:9)

The word used in Leviticus is ʽohph' which basically means flying creature, including birds, bats, and flying insects. Bats are flying creatures.

The term "four corners of the earth" is in common usage today, and in no way implies the earth is flat. Nor are the four winds of the earth literal winds.

 

[rusra02]

To interpret the Bible as an allegory is not to add or remove anything from the word but to read it spiritually. By reading it literal, you read the words/texts, to the letters (that's what literal means), instead of reading it spiritually. The spirit of the text is different than the letter.

2 Cor 3:6 "...not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

You're the one who's killing it by reading it literally.

Jesus taught in allegories, called "parables":
Luke 8.9-10: (9) "Then his disciples asked him what this parable
meant. (10) He said, 'To you . . ." (His disciples) ". . . it has been
given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I
speak in parables, so that 'looking they may not perceive, and
listening they may not understand.'"

That's how the spirit talks, through allegories, not literals.

That is a poor argument for claiming the book of Genesis is allegorical, IMO. Jesus Christ did not believe or teach the events in Genesis were mere allegories. Rather, he accepted them as historical facts. (Matthew 19:4-6, 24:37-39)
When Jesus taught with illustrations, he frequently explained them to his disciples. And Jesus also taught with literal expressions.

 

[rusra02]

Do you know what an allegory is??

Yes, I do.

 

[rusra02]

So you believe the earth is billions of years old, but that animal life did not evolve during that time period?



For the love of pete, I've never said there was no Adam. Evolution does not require a rejection of Adam. :no:



I named several transitional fossils. They have been found in large numbers, exactly where the ToE would predict them to be. Predictions that have borne this kind of fruit cannot honestly be said to be "without foundation." Do I need to go through the list again? Here goes:

We have found fossil series that clearly illustrate the transitions of dozens of major features in various lines. We have found “fishapods” and “frogamanders” and walking whales and feathered dinosaurs and half-shelled turtles. We have often and repeatedly found exactly what the theory of evolution predicted we would find, in the time period in which the theory predicted we would find it.



That is a shameful distortion of Morris's position. Morris is talking about how the transitions support punctuated equilibrium over gradual change, and he refers to transitional fossils. Your use of his words here is a railsplit, and I'm shocked to hear it from someone who claims to follow Christ. Tell me, do you think arguing against evolution excuses you from Christ's command not to lie to fellow Christians?

This is what comes of putting anti-evolutionary stance ahead of Christ's actual words! In order to justify it to other Christians and yourself, you have to lie, ignore or distort scripture, and generally corrupt the words of God with the words of men.

You want to explain how evolution is not a rejection of the Bible's teaching that God created Adam from dust from the ground?

You accuse me of lying for directly quoting what Morris said? I will let the quote and the facts speak for themselves.

Christ's actual words are:“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female*and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
I think it is shameful that those who profess to be "Christian" deny the clear teachings of the Bible, or claim they are mere myths, in favor of the shifting and erroneous theories falsely called science.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The Bible clearly shows there was an evil spirit creature making it appear the serpent was talking. (Revelation 12:9)

The word used in Leviticus is ʽohph' which basically means flying creature, including birds, bats, and flying insects. Bats are flying creatures.

The term "four corners of the earth" is in common usage today, and in no way implies the earth is flat. Nor are the four winds of the earth literal winds.

So is the Bible "literal" or "metaphorical" then? How do we know which parts to accept as "literal" and which ones to accept as "metaphorical?" Or do you just pick and choose which ones you want to take literally and which ones you don't?

 

[rusra02]

So is the Bible "literal" or "metaphorical" then? How do we know which parts to accept as "literal" and which ones to accept as "metaphorical?" Or do you just pick and choose which ones you want to take literally and which ones you don't?

Some prophesies are presented in signs, notably the book of Revelation. This is clearly stated on Revelation 1:1. Most of the Bible is historical narrative or prophecy, or writings based on real people and real places. They are not metaphoric nor is there any basis for assuming they are.

 

[Parsimony]

Rusra, if the creation account in Genesis could be completely reconciled and proven compatible with the theory of evolution, would you care? Why or why not?

 

[rusra02]

Rusra, if the creation account in Genesis could be completely reconciled and proven compatible with the theory of evolution, would you care? Why or why not?

Hi Kryptid. Love your title scootaloo pot pie? As to your question, the origin of life is of great interest to me. I cannot answer impossible hypothetical questions like the one you posed. The fact is, The Genesis account cannot be reconciled with the ToE, nor can the rest of the Bible, for that matter.

 

[McBell]

The fact is, The Genesis account cannot be reconciled with the ToE, nor can the rest of the Bible, for that matter.

Except that it is not a fact...

But don't let that get in the way.

 

[Parsimony]

Hi Kryptid. Love your title scootaloo pot pie? As to your question, the origin of life is of great interest to me. I cannot answer impossible hypothetical questions like the one you posed. The fact is, The Genesis account cannot be reconciled with the ToE, nor can the rest of the Bible, for that matter.

Fair enough. What if the Bible had been silent about the origin of life? Would your view of evolution be different if that was the case?

 

[rusra02]

Fair enough. What if the Bible had been silent about the origin of life? Would your view of evolution be different if that was the case?

Sorry, I cannot answer hypothetical questions like that. I will say this, many scientists, including biologists, reject the ToE as a plausible theory of how life developed. I think the ToE has gained the traction it has amongst many because of the ceaseless propaganda from the media, academia, and ToE apologists such as Richard Dawkins. I agree with this quote from the brochure Was Life Created: "in this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”"

 

[Parsimony]

Sorry, I cannot answer hypothetical questions like that.

Why not? Surely you can at least guess as to how you beliefs may or may not be different about the origin of life if the Bible didn't mention the beginnings. If the problem is about "taking away from the Bible", then let's instead imagine that the Bible is the way it always has been but you, for whatever reason, have not yet read the creation account in Genesis. Would that lack of knowledge make your beliefs any different?

I will say this, many scientists, including biologists, reject the ToE as a plausible theory of how life developed.

They are hardly in the majority, however. There are probably scientists that believe opening an umbrella in the house is bad luck too.

I think the ToE has gained the traction it has amongst many because of the ceaseless propaganda from the media, academia, and ToE apologists such as Richard Dawkins. I agree with this quote from the brochure Was Life Created: "in this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”"

Except that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Seems like a red herring.

 

[metis]

Sorry, I cannot answer hypothetical questions like that. I will say this, many scientists, including biologists, reject the ToE as a plausible theory of how life developed.

An extremely small percent, and I betcha that probably just about all of them use their fundamentalist religious approach as a set of blinders. Any self-proclaimed scientist who actually believes that Earth and the cosmos are only several thousand years old is not dealing with reality because the evidence saying otherwise is overwhelming, plus there's not one shred of evidence that the Earth and cosmos is anywhere near that young.

I can cut some slack with those who really do not understand the evolutionary process, but I'm not going to cut any slack for those in science who simply ignore the evidence. To me, they make a complete mockery of their religion and their supposed "science".

 

[McBell]

I will say this, many scientists, including biologists, reject the ToE as a plausible theory of how life developed.

List them.
To make the job easier, list the biologists.

 

[johnhanks]

I will say this, many scientists, including biologists, reject the ToE as a plausible theory of how life developed.

And despite numerous invitations to do so you have yet to name one who rejects it on grounds unconnected with religious belief.

 

[rusra02]

An extremely small percent, and I betcha that probably just about all of them use their fundamentalist religious approach as a set of blinders. Any self-proclaimed scientist who actually believes that Earth and the cosmos are only several thousand years old is not dealing with reality because the evidence saying otherwise is overwhelming, plus there's not one shred of evidence that the Earth and cosmos is anywhere near that young.

I can cut some slack with those who really do not understand the evolutionary process, but I'm not going to cut any slack for those in science who simply ignore the evidence. To me, they make a complete mockery of their religion and their supposed "science".

Please do not equate belief in an intelligent Designer with the discredited views of Young earth Creationists. They are not the same, and it would be dishonest to say or infer that they are.