Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[marksman]

I've specifically pointed out where Meyer is wrong ("genetic information") and where Wells lies (moths on tree trunks). if what they say doesn't line up with the facts, then you have to have the courage to go the other way and follow the facts. Sadly, that courage seems to be in short supply in some groups.

Wells did not lie about moths in tree trunks. That is a beat up by atheists. He states clearly in his book that in experiments conducted by others that they found that overall, the moths resided in branches, not on tree trunks. The one where a moth was found on a tree trunk was fabricated to prove a point that could not be substantiated by empirical research.

 

[marksman]

Right...your decision on whether to trust a site isn't based on accuracy or truthfulness, but rather is based on whether they share with your beliefs. IOW, tribalism, just as I described.


Um, no...the outrageous dishonesty behind how some creationists edit and misrepresent the words of scientists is well documented. it's one of the main reasons I've seen people cite for concluding that creationists aren't trustworthy.

And the outrageous dishonesty behind how some atheists misrepresent the truth is well documented. I have several books that outline the lies and fairy stories concocted by atheists for the simple reason that although they know what they believe is false, they will not admit it because if they do, a door opens that brings God into the equation.

 

[marksman]

Again...so? Did "they do it too" work on your mom?


The people who believe in a flat earth that doesn't move can make the exact same argument. "We're just looking at the data differently". Sorry, but the consistent dishonesty I keep seeing from the creationist sources that are cited here shows that this isn't a case of "looking at the data differently". it's exactly as AiG says in their statement of faith...

I would like to know who are these people are who believe in a flat earth? I checked up on it and it wasn't the church. In fact it was the church that was arguing against it so it is obviously being assigned incorrectly by atheists who throw it in as a snide remark to indicate how backward and ignorant Christians are.

 

[marksman]

You are missing the point. Did Christians have slaves? Yes. Did they have slaves because the Bible told them to? No. Did some try to justify it in the BIble? Yes. Do homosexuals try to justify their homosexuality with the Bible? Yes. Do Polygamists try to justify their polygamy with the Bible? Yes. Do people try to justify their greed with the Bible? Yes. What is new? Its like you think that if you can find a group or even a segment of Christians that hold a view that it represents all of Christianity. Again, it was certain Christians that led the charge against these injustices.

I would like to follow up on this point because the atheists are in total denial on this one. All they can talk about is that some Christians had slaves and ignore the fact that William Wilberforce, a Christian and parliamentarian was the most responsible for outlawing slavery. They don’t want to know that because it does not allow them to blacken the name of Christianity. A lot of slaves were better off being a slave to a Christian as they were treated well and looked after. When emancipation came, a lot of them did not want to leave their Christian masters.

And Dawkins, one of the High Priests of the New Atheism is in total denial. I have heard him say more than once that now that atheism/humanism has taken over society and religion is fading out, slavery is no longer a problem. He ignores the fact totally that sex slavery is rampant today. It has millions under its control so Dawkins is avoiding the truth like the plague.

Sex slavery is a curse worldwide and is all the more devastating because it involves women and children. If that is the best that atheism can do then they are definitely living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Born_Again]

I would like to follow up on this point because the atheists are in total denial on this one. All they can talk about is that some Christians had slaves and ignore the fact that William Wilberforce, a Christian and parliamentarian was the most responsible for outlawing slavery. They don’t want to know that because it does not allow them to blacken the name of Christianity. A lot of slaves were better off being a slave to a Christian as they were treated well and looked after. When emancipation came, a lot of them did not want to leave their Christian masters.

And Dawkins, one of the High Priests of the New Atheism is in total denial. I have heard him say more than once that now that atheism/humanism has taken over society and religion is fading out, slavery is no longer a problem. He ignores the fact totally that sex slavery is rampant today. It has millions under its control so Dawkins is avoiding the truth like the plague.

Sex slavery is a curse worldwide and is all the more devastating because it involves women and children. If that is the best that atheism can do then they are definitely living in cloud cuckoo land.

The problem with Dawkings and most atheist is this: Atheist "believe religion is fading. Well, the definition of religion is a set of beliefes. So therefor, atheism must be a religion. All they really do is challenge other belief systems but can provide no alternative answers. They simply deny Christianity. It more or less is just a hate against Chrisitianity without reputable cause. Also, Dawkings is considered an authourity figure amongst atheist. True atheist have no authority figure, it is actually quite selfish.. See any publication by Ayn Rand. They are said to be objective and reasonable. Well, seeing how they only deal in absolutes... that doesnt seem very reasonable at all. They are like a child, and the best answer they can come up with is "I know you are but what am I?" And the only reason anyone would buy into their agenda is because they are lost and easily manipulated and need someone to blame for their problems..... You know, like Hitler used the Jews. Atheist have blinders on and will hand out blinders to anyone who might bite at what they are selling.

 

[River Jordan]

Wells did not lie about moths in tree trunks.

Yes he did. I showed you the data and compared it to Wells' claim. He's been told this before but continues to repeat his lie. So not only is he a liar, he's an unrepentant one at that.

And you know he's a Moonie, right?

That is a beat up by atheists.

Are you one of those weird fundamentalists who think everyone who disagrees with them is an atheist? :wacko:

He states clearly in his book that in experiments conducted by others that they found that overall, the moths resided in branches, not on tree trunks. The one where a moth was found on a tree trunk was fabricated to prove a point that could not be substantiated by empirical research.

That's the lie, and here you are repeating it even though you've been shown the data. Guess what that makes you?

And the outrageous dishonesty behind how some atheists misrepresent the truth is well documented. I have several books that outline the lies and fairy stories concocted by atheists for the simple reason that although they know what they believe is false, they will not admit it because if they do, a door opens that brings God into the equation.

Why do you keep bringing up atheists, when no one here is an atheist?

I would like to know who are these people are who believe in a flat earth?

John Calvin and Martin Luther both believed the Bible depicted a stationary flat earth. This image was included in Luther's Bible...

 

[aspen]

Two premises must be embraced in this conversation in order to find agreement.

1. Christians are always right because they are defending the Truth
2. Please reference number one.

 

[marksman]

Yes he did. I showed you the data and compared it to Wells' claim. He's been told this before but continues to repeat his lie. So not only is he a liar, he's an unrepentant one at that.

And you know he's a Moonie, right?


Are you one of those weird fundamentalists who think everyone who disagrees with them is an atheist? :wacko:


That's the lie, and here you are repeating it even though you've been shown the data. Guess what that makes you?


Why do you keep bringing up atheists, when no one here is an atheist?


John Calvin and Martin Luther both believed the Bible depicted a stationary flat earth. This image was included in Luther's Bible...

Then you must be an unrepentant name it and claim it person. The book I read said that moths were not found on tree trunks, they were found in branches so believe what you like it doesn't bother me. Your constant claim that he is a Moonie is totally irrelevant. Whatever he is, what he says and does is the important bit. And what is a weird fundamentalist? if you can't write without being pejorative, better not write at all. In case you have not worked it out yet, I can bring up anything I want. I don't need your permission. And one more point. Calvin and Luther are not the church. They are members of the church who do not speak for everyone else.

 

[River Jordan]

The book I read said that moths were not found on tree trunks, they were found in branches so believe what you like it doesn't bother me.

Right...you read a book from some Moonie who has never studied peppered moths. And in your world, that totally trumps actual data from the primary peppered moth researcher in the world.

Your constant claim that he is a Moonie is totally irrelevant. Whatever he is, what he says and does is the important bit.

Yep, and he lies.

And what is a weird fundamentalist?

Someone who goes on and on about atheists in a setting where there are no atheists.

Calvin and Luther are not the church. They are members of the church who do not speak for everyone else.

You asked "I would like to know who are these people are who believe in a flat earth?" I gave you the names of two very famous Christians who believed the Bible depicts a stationary flat earth. Don't try and change the question after it's been answered.

 

[marksman]

The problem with Dawkings and most atheist is this: Atheist "believe religion is fading. Well, the definition of religion is a set of beliefes. So therefor, atheism must be a religion. All they really do is challenge other belief systems but can provide no alternative answers. They simply deny Christianity. It more or less is just a hate against Chrisitianity without reputable cause. Also, Dawkings is considered an authourity figure amongst atheist. True atheist have no authority figure, it is actually quite selfish.. See any publication by Ayn Rand. They are said to be objective and reasonable. Well, seeing how they only deal in absolutes... that doesnt seem very reasonable at all. They are like a child, and the best answer they can come up with is "I know you are but what am I?" And the only reason anyone would buy into their agenda is because they are lost and easily manipulated and need someone to blame for their problems..... You know, like Hitler used the Jews. Atheist have blinders on and will hand out blinders to anyone who might bite at what they are selling.

I agree evidenced by the fact that they have to date 35 churches and counting. At the same time they have lodge a religious tax exception. If that ain't church I don't know what is.

 

[marksman]

Right...you read a book from some Moonie who has never studied peppered moths. And in your world, that totally trumps actual data from the primary peppered moth researcher in the world.


Yep, and he lies.


Someone who goes on and on about atheists in a setting where there are no atheists.


You asked "I would like to know who are these people are who believe in a flat earth?" I gave you the names of two very famous Christians who believed the Bible depicts a stationary flat earth. Don't try and change the question after it's been answered.

Your definition of a weird fundamentalist could not be more wrong. The word "fundamentalist" means "five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, which developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century." Weird means "funny or bizarre or supernatural." So the true meaning of a weird fundamentalist is as follows..." a person who holds to five specific classical theological beliefs that are considered funny or bizarre or supernatural."

It has nothing at all to do with someone who goes on and on about atheists in a setting where there are no atheists.

As for changing the question, that is figment of your imagination. You held Luther and Calvin as spokesmen of the churches flat earth understanding. I pointed out that Luther and Calvin are not the church. These two were no doubt outnumbered by millions who did not believe in a flat earth. Whilst they were influential, not everyone agreed with them.

And the researcher stated that the peppered moth does not reside on tree trunks. They reside in tree branches which is what he concurred with.

 

[Wormwood]

Luther died before Galileo was even born. Calvin died on the year Galileo was born. I think all the "scientists" in that era also believed in a flat earth. It was the accepted view.

 

[River Jordan]

Your definition of a weird fundamentalist could not be more wrong. The word "fundamentalist" means "five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, which developed into a Christian [/size]fundamentalist[/size] movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century." Weird means "funny or bizarre or supernatural." So the true meaning of a weird fundamentalist is as follows..." a person who holds to five specific classical theological beliefs that are considered funny or bizarre or supernatural."

It has nothing at all to do with someone who goes on and on about atheists in a setting where there are no atheists.

Yeah, thanks.

As for changing the question, that is figment of your imagination. You held Luther and Calvin as spokesmen of the churches flat earth understanding. I pointed out that Luther and Calvin are not the church.

Now you're being even more dishonest. Is it really that hard for you to do something as simple as own up to your own words? You asked "I would like to know who are these people are who believe in a flat earth?" I gave you the names of two very famous Christians who believed the Bible depicts a stationary flat earth. I never said anything about anyone being spokesmen for anyone or anything.

These two were no doubt outnumbered by millions who did not believe in a flat earth. Whilst they were influential, not everyone agreed with them.

And your evidence for this is.....?

And the researcher stated that the peppered moth does not reside on tree trunks. They reside in tree branches which is what he concurred with.

Who is this researcher?

 

[River Jordan]

Luther died before Galileo was even born. Calvin died on the year Galileo was born.

So it is OK to use science to inform how we interpret scripture?

I think all the "scientists" in that era also believed in a flat earth. It was the accepted view.

Nope. The Greeks for example, had proved mathematically that the earth was a sphere long before. They even estimated its circumference

 

[Wormwood]

So it is OK to use science to inform how we interpret scripture?

Only in secularism are these two fields seen as isolated or even competing. Early Christians did not think this way. I think these categories are a product of modernism. Both concepts work together and when either theology or science are seen as the means by which the other is interpreted, then errors abound. The God who spoke the Scriptures is the God who spoke creation. We shouldn't isolate creation as a means of interpreting the Scriptures, nor should we isolate the Scriptures as the means by which we interpret creation. Science and theology should both be efforts to draw humans to worship their Creator. When that ceases to be the focus for science, it becomes a meaningless enterprise. The same is true when that ceases to be the focus for the Scriptures.

Nope. The Greeks for example, had proved mathematically that the earth was a sphere long before. They even estimated its circumference

I am speaking about the prevailing understanding in the culture and world in which Luther and Calvin lived. They were not combatting prevailing cosmological views of their day because of their hermeneutics as your comments imply.

 

[Deborah_]

John Calvin and Martin Luther both believed the Bible depicted a stationary flat earth. This image was included in Luther's Bible...

Are you sure this earth is meant to be flat? It looks spherical to me.
If it's flat, then why are the sun moon and stars shown to be around the edges?

 

[River Jordan]

Only in secularism are these two fields seen as isolated or even competing. Early Christians did not think this way. I think these categories are a product of modernism. Both concepts work together and when either theology or science are seen as the means by which the other is interpreted, then errors abound. The God who spoke the Scriptures is the God who spoke creation. We shouldn't isolate creation as a means of interpreting the Scriptures, nor should we isolate the Scriptures as the means by which we interpret creation. Science and theology should both be efforts to draw humans to worship their Creator. When that ceases to be the focus for science, it becomes a meaningless enterprise. The same is true when that ceases to be the focus for the Scriptures.

That's good to hear, given all the grief I've gotten in this forum for allowing science to inform my interpretation of scripture.

I am speaking about the prevailing understanding in the culture and world in which Luther and Calvin lived. They were not combatting prevailing cosmological views of their day because of their hermeneutics as your comments imply.

Do you have any examples of (what passed for) scientists during that time promoting flat-earthism? Ptolemy's works were very well known in European academic circles (for example, Columbus carried one of his books on his voyages).

 

[River Jordan]

Are you sure this earth is meant to be flat? It looks spherical to me.

Yeah, it's flat. Luther wrote a bit about Christians not being beholden to the views of the astronomers of his day.

If it's flat, then why are the sun moon and stars shown to be around the edges?

Probably because that's the easiest way to draw it and label everything. This Wiki page might be helpful...

Biblical Cosmology

 

[marksman]

Yeah, it's flat. Luther wrote a bit about Christians not being beholden to the views of the astronomers of his day.


Probably because that's the easiest way to draw it and label everything. This Wiki page might be helpful...

Biblical Cosmology

From a well known website....

THE FLAT EARTH MYTH
“The earth isn’t flat – end of story.” So says Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “We don’t have to have classes or be sensitive to the issues of those who believe that, because they’re wrong.”

Defenders of Darwinian evolution sometimes compare their critics to believers in a flat earth. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for theological reasons that the earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the earth is actually a sphere, most Christians acknowledged their mistake, but a few continue to persist in their outmoded belief. Since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwinian evolution (so the story goes), its critics are like people who still believe in a flat earth.

But the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians.

The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. [These were really second stringers. The leading theological lights of that period were Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine — none of these thought the earth was flat.]

A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was – but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.

The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).
So defenders of Darwinism who ridicule their critics for being like believers in a flat earth are being misled by a myth that Darwinists themselves helped to create.

UNCOMMON DESCENT

 

[Wormwood]

That's good to hear, given all the grief I've gotten in this forum for allowing science to inform my interpretation of scripture.

I think we all allow science, culture, language, history and everything else to inform our interpretation of scripture. None of us interpret scripture in a vacuum. However, my contention has been that we need to have high esteem for both science and Scripture and we should never let one be the primary dictator of how the other is understood. When one allows science to determine how they read Scripture, which leads to an inconsistent or nonsensical hermeneutic, then Scripture ceases to be authoritative (i.e. this is just a myth or mere parable with no basis in actual history). Likewise, if someone wants to look at Scripture as though it were some sort of wooden document that ignores the presence of God around us in his creation, then that also leads to a strange hermeneutic that often does not consider the context, genre or intent of the authors as they wrote (i.e. the Scripture writer was giving us an exact timeline to trace back to the creation through the genealogies, and all the language must be viewed as completely literal depictions). To be sure, the authors were not 21st century scientists. Yet, that does not mean they were not communicating mere moral stories that have no foundation in actual historical events, either. Christians need to maintain a balance. I feel I have been consistent in that message throughout my conversations on this board.

Again, I think this is how early Christian scientists understood things. They never had the notion that what they were researching in the world was separate from, contrary to or a means to guide their interpretation of the Scriptures. Both were seen as means to understand the mind, power, glory, and goodness of God.