jeffblue101
New member
To be clear here, are you perfectly fine with using contradictory arguments as long as what is being attacked is fundamentalism?
Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
alwight
New member
Since I have no idea what you might erroneously think of as contradictory so perhaps you would spell out for me?
I can only surmise that perhaps you think that Christians and Christian fundamentalists are one and the same? :think:
jeffblue101
New member
It's right there in my first post, do you think it's rational to agree to and cite passages of Scripture which are being used in a contradictory manner just to attack "fundamentalists"?
Jose Fly
New member
Jeff,
Once again, your tribalism is showing. Just because one atheist makes an argument over there, and another atheist makes a different argument somewhere else, doesn't mean there's a contradiction. The reason should be obvious.....because you're comparing arguments from different people.
And BTW, I'm not an atheist. Apathetic agnostic is a better term.
Once again, your tribalism is showing. Just because one atheist makes an argument over there, and another atheist makes a different argument somewhere else, doesn't mean there's a contradiction. The reason should be obvious.....because you're comparing arguments from different people.
And BTW, I'm not an atheist. Apathetic agnostic is a better term.
genuineoriginal
New member
You mispelled apoplectic
How, "Un-brilliant" of you. Are you self-taught or did some, liberal
misanthrope happen to come along side of you, and announce that,
he alone would be your Mentor?
Biology is a well established science. Only a delusional person would reject observed reality for magic that no one can see.
The bible is a figurative literary work to impart moral truths. It is not a literal fact based history book. Cults teach this to control people. If you are under the influence of a cult you should escape.
The bible is a figurative literary work to impart moral truths. It is not a literal fact based history book. Cults teach this to control people. If you are under the influence of a cult you should escape.
Biology is a well-established science. Only a delusional person would reject observed reality for evolution that no one can see.
Origin of Species is a figurative literary work to impart lies. It is not a literal fact based history book. Cults teach this to control people. If you are under the influence of a cult you should escape.
Origin of Species is a figurative literary work to impart lies. It is not a literal fact based history book. Cults teach this to control people. If you are under the influence of a cult you should escape.
jeffblue101
New member
No, they are not separate arguments since there was agreement and mockery from multiple "atheists or apathetic agnostics" on this thread. The fact of matter is that the "unbelievers" on this thread have given very little thought on the consistency of their own arguments when Scripture was cited. As long as its an attack on Scripture than its good enough for you regardless if it's even consistent with your own "apathetic agnostic" view on Jewish knowledge.
No one uses the origin of species in Biology class. I am sorry you don't understand biology, but substituting magic doesn't make you intellectual or informed. Biology is established science, and evolution is the backbone of biology.
Mutation is real. Genetic drift do to environment is real. Genetic change do to reproduction though sex and genetic recombination is real and observed.
Over time those lead to population that can no longer breed with others. That is established.
Jose Fly
New member
Then you have a bit of a reading comprehension issue. These are the statements you posted...
Greg Jennings: "Well if you think that one is literal then I'll give you a different comparison: what makes Genesis creation in six days literal but "four corners" of Earth figurative?"
So there's an agnostic talking about four corners.
Alwight: "So there are no literal corners and the Bible can indeed be figurative, unless fundamentalists say otherwise."
So there's an agnostic talking about four corners.
Alate One: "And this has been shown to be true over and over. Passages of the Bible can have multiple interpretations (and ancient people were fine with that) Interpretations can shift over time, sun standing still was once literal, now it's considered figurative or perspective based."
So there's a Christian talking about the sun standing still.
Alwright: "As I recall the word "sphere" doesn't appear in the Bible, while I also seem to remember that despite there being a good Hebrew word for ball-like, that doesn't feature either in any ancient texts. A disc or circle is about the best you can do. The sort of view a middle eastern goat herder might have seen from atop a donkey on a high crest."
So there's an agnostic talking about spheres and circles.
Jose Fly: "Yes, circles are flat (think of a dinner plate or CD)."
So there's an agnostic talking about circles.
But Alate One didn't say anything about four corners or circles, and I never said anything about four corners either. Not only that, but none of the people you quoted are atheists, and one of them is even a Christian. Yet you called them all atheists and tried to compare their statements against each other.
Like I said, your tribalism is clouding your thinking.
As we see above, all you're doing is projecting your own faults onto others. Due to your tribal view and zeal to attack atheists, you cited non-related quotes from non-atheists and tried to lump them all together as being indicative of arguments from atheists.
In the future, I suggest taking more time and being more careful.
alwight
New member
I don't have a problem with Christianity itself or the Bible, but why shouldn't I expect Christian fundies to explain how it is that an Earth with four corners resting on Pillars could be anything other than figurative or allegorical?
If they insist that the Bible is an inerrant historical narrative, as I believe they do, even if it contradicts accepted science, then it's really no good waffling or whinging if I then ask where are these corners and pillars?
We can all probably agree that they don't actually exist, so why must a literal six day creation have to be so historically accurate?
I don't think I'm being contradictory at all, I can leave that to Christian fundamentalists.
alwight
New member
Was that just a gratuitous drive-by or would you like to elaborate on my apparent liberal dullness of mind? :chew:
Uh, OK. :idunno:
That's OK. Just don't do it again. :up:
Sure, it does. Removing your magical evolutionism and replacing it with science is all good. :thumb:
Nope. Evidence rules out evolution.
It sure is. Organisms are degrading continuously.
Nope.
Evidence, remember? Creatures adapt rapidly to their environment in predictable ways — clear evidence that no evolution is involved.
I see you took Bio 101. :chuckle:
Even if it was, it is a long way short of establishing evolution.
jeffblue101
New member
thank you for reaffirming what I originally posted, that "unbelievers" could care less about the consistency of their own arguments. no matter how I answer your questions the goal posts will be shifted to mean something else.
Yeah all those medicals schools and pharma research labs are wrong about how biology works.
We wouldn't test drugs on monkeys if they were not related to us and we had the same biology. It just wouldn't work at all.
6days
New member
Why would you think that? They all understand how biology works. But some of the people have different beliefs about our origins.
Testing is done on monkeys, rabbits, mice and other animals that have similar features. It would not make sense to test medicine for vertebrae eyes on stalks of celery.OliviaM said:
Christian and atheist geneticists and biologists work side by side in the lab performing the same science but having different beliefs about the past.
If we were not biologically related the testing wouldn't work. It proves we are genetically related and have a common ancestor.
6days
New member
No... sorry but you are wrong.
You are confusing Science and your belief system.
Genetically similar can be explained by common ancestry beliefs.... or even better by our common Designer. ..the Creator God of the Bible.