Ignorance

[omega2xx]

No, we don't know about the toe...long way from that... But evolution...all might not be correct....but what we do know...it is real...

I keep asking for someone to provide the evidence for natural selection, a basic belief in evolution. No one has done that yet because they can't. That would make me re-evaluate my belief in evolution.

While seven days of creation and a young universe if 6500 years...is clearly not.

Since the Bible does not give he age of the universe, IMO, that is irrelevant. T:he only relevant this is how did the universe and life come into being. IMO an omnipotent Creator is the most logical answer and so far none of the evolutionists have offered an alternative.

Like the climate change debate... 99% of scientists know evolution and climate.change has happened and is happening.... Very few have their heads in the sand

First, we do not determine truth by majority. AT one time the majority thought the earth was flat.

Climate change is one of the silliest theories going to day. Of course climate changes. Climate is cyclical. It has changed since day one. There is no evidence it will destroy life as we know it.

If evolution has happened, as you say, where is the evidence? It certainly isn't shown in the fossil record. If it has happened, why can't anyone here proved even one example of it?

If evolution can't offer one example of it happening, who has their head in the sand? I can prove after it kind, can you falsify it?

 

[Thomas]

I keep asking for someone to provide the evidence for natural selection, a basic belief in evolution.

Let's try another tack ... you provide proof of what is happening, if not evolution.

We have done our bit ... we have provided enough, and there is enough out there, to present evolution as a compelling theory. What is clear to everyone here is that your flat refusal to accept any evidence of anything that doesn't fit your world view. This doesn't make you right, and I daresay the consensus here is, the more you go on, the more wrong your are.

The big problem for you is the literal interpretation of Scripture. It's not a simple case of believing what's written because it's written ... And if you say "The Bible says..." then I say again, where's your proof?

The Bible is not a proof of anything, it's a testimony of belief. A statement of faith. It is not a scientific treatise, and to treat it as one does it an injustice.

Or, put simply: the Bible says when man and women marry, they become "two in one flesh". Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:8, 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31.

But they don't, do they? They never do. There is nowhere, even in the Bible itself, where two people became one flesh. Never have two people become one person. Even Our Lord's parents were two separate people. So is the Bible wrong? Because if, as you assert, that if the Bible says it, it's literally true, then I have to say it isn't ... what is being spoken of is something far more profound.

No one has done that yet because they can't. That would make me re-evaluate my belief in evolution.

Oh they have, it's just I get the impression you can't afford to allow that in.

But, by the same token, you have offered nothing in return to make us re-evaluate our position.

Since the Bible does not give the age of the universe, IMO, that is irrelevant.

But the Bible says nothing about evolution, so is not your whole argument irrelevant?

The only relevant this is how did the universe and life come into being. IMO an omnipotent Creator is the most logical answer and so far none of the evolutionists have offered an alternative.

I agree that the existence of a Creator is, to me, the logical answer — but I would also add that the way I see it, having made the world and everything in it, including the laws of nature that govern it, then such a God would work in, with and through His creation to bring forth everything He wills to be brought forth ... so I see God as having established the Cosmos, and the laws, and indeed He brought forth man from the dust of the earth in much the same way as evolution suggests the process occurred.

First, we do not determine truth by majority. AT one time the majority thought the earth was flat.

And at one time everyone thought the Bible was literally true.

If evolution has happened, as you say, where is the evidence? It certainly isn't shown in the fossil record. If it has happened, why can't anyone here proved even one example of it?

Then where are the Neanderthals? Where are all the species of human that have left their fossils for us? And where are the sabre tooth tigers, the mammoths, etc., etc.

If evolution can't offer one example of it happening, who has their head in the sand? I can prove after it kind, can you falsify it?

OK. You provide me one proof of God creating, and I'll find 10 proofs of evolution.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Or, put simply: the Bible says when man and women marry, they become "two in one flesh". Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:8, 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31.

But they don't, do they? They never do. There is nowhere, even in the Bible itself, where two people became one flesh. Never have two people become one person. Even Our Lord's parents were two separate people. So is the Bible wrong? Because if, as you assert, that if the Bible says it, it's literally true, then I have to say it isn't ... what is being spoken of is something far more profound.

Actually, that one is profoundly literal. If two people marry and produce a child they have in effect, through that child, become two in one flesh. Every child is the sum total of their parents. Two people in one flesh. Jesus on the other hand was God in the flesh. As only one parent was of the flesh, the other Divine.

 

[Thomas]

Actually, that one is profoundly literal. If two people marry and produce a child they have in effect, through that child, become two in one flesh.

Er ... sorry, no ... there's no mention of children (which would make 3 or more, surely?), and the text 'literally' refers to the two, nothing to do with offspring ... in which case they'd become two, three, four, etc.?

Every child is the sum total of their parents.

Er ... no ... children are not composites, they are their own persons, with inherited traits?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Er ... sorry, no ... there's no mention of children (which would make 3 or more, surely?), and the text 'literally' refers to the two, nothing to do with offspring ... in which case they'd become two, three, four, etc.?

Yes, but it's inferred. After all, what was the primary purpose of marriage in those days?

Er ... no ... children are not composites, they are their own persons, with inherited traits?

...and how many people does it take to make each person with inherited traits?

Just yanking your chain old chum. I didn't expect you'd agree. Actual mileage may vary and all that. Cheers

 

[Craz]

. Yez.... since the world is flat and nobody would have 24 hours of darkness...

Me? I think I'll.watch the 24 hours of sunset!!

Goodpoint, I'll mention that to the one flat-Earther I know

 

[Thomas]

After all, what was the primary purpose of marriage in those days?

Please reread the texts, NJ, they're clearly not talking about offspring. And if you can provide commentary evidence that the text should be read literally, I'd be interested.

...and how many people does it take to make each person with inherited traits?

Every one who went before.

Just yanking your chain old chum. I didn't expect you'd agree.

Well I can't agree with error, can I?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Actually, that one is profoundly literal. If two people marry and produce a child they have in effect, through that child, become two in one flesh. Every child is the sum total of their parents. Two people in one flesh. Jesus on the other hand was God in the flesh. As only one parent was of the flesh, the other Divine.

Good point. My dad always told us that a literal interpretation of the Bible was possible, but not literally as written or translated. It requires much more discernment than that. The idea of two becoming one flesh is a good example of what he meant. The words themselves cannot be taken literally, but the sentiment being conveyed is quite literal on many different levels. Through copulation, where man and woman are quite literally linked together as one. Then, as you point out here, when offspring is produced. That child is quite literally a product of that union. One flesh spawned by two. Then there's the spiritual side of things when man and woman join in marriage. One partner, quite literally becomes an extension of the other. In this sense, the statement is literally true.

 

[Thomas]

Good point. My dad always told us that a literal interpretation of the Bible was possible, but not literally as written or translated.

My point was in reference to the literal reading of the text, not a metaphorical: The two do not become one flesh.

Of course there are various metaphorical allusions — one body, as you say, in love, one body of a family, a community, a gathering, a church, a nation — but I was trying to highlight the problem of a strict literal reading of Scripture as omega asserts, it just doesn't follow...

The language is even more challenging when the word used is basar in Hebrew and sarx in Greek, which means the carnal flesh, whereas, speaking of one body as you and NJ are, then Scripture uses the term soma, such as in Romas 12:5 "So we, being many, are one body (soma) in Christ, and every one members one of another." — Paul's reference to one body being a metaphor much as you've described.

And for the sake of precision, it's not literally true, as you're talking about a metaphorical interpretation.

Literally true would mean the two fuse into one flesh. If they became literally one body literally, if one party sinned, both would be guilty, and we do not try the one for the crimes of the other; and by the same token, that we all 'sin in Adam' is an allusion to a more profound mystery of human nature, which the literalists who get caught up in 'original sin' miss ...

 

[Namaste Jesus]

My dad always told us that a literal interpretation of the Bible was possible, but not literally as written or translated. It requires much more discernment than that. The idea of two becoming one flesh is a good example of what he meant. The words themselves cannot be taken literally, but the sentiment being conveyed is quite literal on many different levels.

Quite true. A lot of the Bible is like that. You really have to read between the lines sometimes to get the full meaning.

My point was in reference to the literal reading of the text, not a metaphorical: The two do not become one flesh.

Thomas, we both understand your point. We even agree with it. As Aussie said above, "The idea of two becoming one flesh is a good example of what he meant. The words themselves cannot be taken literally..."

All Aussie is saying is, that certain aspects of the sentiment expressed by the statement, two in one flesh, are, in a sense, quite literal and I agree. I know that you see things differently and understand your reasoning. Nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion. I can accept that. I only ask to be extended the same courtesy.

 

[Thomas]

Quite true. A lot of the Bible is like that. You really have to read between the lines sometimes to get the full meaning.

That was my sole point — that omega's assertion is really problematic.

No discourtesy intended — you and Aussie are off on a tangent and I really wanted to stay on topic ... fine by me, although we seem to be working to different definitions of the term 'literal' .

The Hebrew and Greek references were just for anyone who was interested in the text.

 

[roywilljenks]

Another interesting read... Thanks!

 

[The reader]

Oh NOW you've done it! It is much, much worse than you suggest. People are not ignorant of science. They consciously choose to believe that scientific facts are not relevant if it conflicts with what they prefer to believe. This does not make me sad, it makes me furious! Here we are at the dawn of the 21st century and a significant part of the population of this country have no more understanding of our world than someone from the Middle Ages.

People in the Middle Ages had an excuse. They didn't have the font of scientific knowledge we have today. What possible excuse do the science deniers have today?

Wil may not understand how his smart phone works, and he would be in good company as most of the rest of us have only the vaguest idea how it does what it does. And you know what, the science unbelievers don't know how their phone works either, but those of us on the side of sanity know it works because we understand there is advanced science & technology that made this gadget possible.

And you know what? Science deniers also know that science & technology are behind these products. So they are willing to accept science when it suits their needs, and only reject it when it conflicts with their wishes.

This is lunacy!

I don’t even own one and never have but I know how a cell phone works, inside and out. It’s nothing more than a miniature computer drunk down to fit in the hand. All computer systems work on the same basis wether it takes up a building or fits on your wrist. When I first got into the computer field back in 1978 we had only 3 K memory to work with and up in the gigs. Funny heh?