... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I

1) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part I, 2) ... to Unbalanced Anti-YEC "priest" and his defenders, part II, 3) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part I, 4) ... Continuing debate on Biblical authority (under Anti-YEC "priest" video), part II

Video commented on:

tpr007 : A Priest Ridicules Creationist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQuvwQ4y-k

I

ExtantFrodo2

Most fiction incorporates the names of real places and people. Such correspondence is not evidence that the bible is not fiction. Sorry, but you are terribly wrong. The fossil record alone debunks creation. You should find all species at every level if creation was true. Denial of this amounts to nothing short of a desire to be dishonest and lie about reality. The global flood is impossible and completely without evidence.

notstayinsdowns

Ever heard of this:

"The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s,[8] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection."

The Bible has never been shown to be wrong and then there is prophecy, truth in reporting, etc. Verification of the Bible has been made for hundreds of years.

Lantern Corps

The fact that the Cambrian Explosion happened a couple hundred million years ago pretty much already debunks the idea that God made the earth only a couple thousand years ago. Perhaps, next time, we not try to use evidence for the wrong argument?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First of all he was not at the moment arguing for a young earth but against evolutionist atheism.

Then again, the Cambrian explosion, so called, is not what happened some hundred million years ago but what has been dated as such.

Third, it is a conclusion of evolutionist and deep time geology thinking and as such relevant as reductio in absurdum of other parts of that ideology.

gerontodon

''First of all he was not at the moment arguing for a young earth but against evolutionist atheism.''

Exactly, so many people sticking up for 'science' seem pretty poor at identifying different but related questions, which is odd, because I'd thought that having a reductionist worldview would mean that they're very left-brained and so would be good at logic. I think some are jumping on the bandwagon that they think makes them look clever and others have got logical blindspots.

II

notstayinsdowns

Because there is different stories about after life indicates there must be an after life, but only one can be true. So one must look at "all" the evidence in order to make this important decision.

But my reply was about my motivation to tell my belief. I already have my afterlife situated so it doesn't help me to change people's minds. It is to help others.

Lantern Corps

So, by your logic, if I made three different versions of the Harry Potter book series, that means that one of them must be a reality?

110% logical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you made three versions of HP book series they would not be three stories believed by people as true.

His point is that popular notions with stories conflicting in detail but really believed point to some genuine experience.

Flood and man in first creation are of course stronger cases than after life. Since Adam had eyes to see with as soon as created. Since Flood was documented by Noah (main staple of what is writ in Genesis about it, though physical explanations can have been revealed).

III

Lantern Corps

By the way, there's another thing that I sort of view as a problem with Christianity: At first, the people were told to hold everything in the Bible as truth. Nowadays, if you asked one thousand Christians exactly what parts of the Bible we should hold true, and what parts should be identified as false, you would get thousands upon thousands of different combinations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And there would be a few who held fast to everything being truth in the Bible.

Answered twice

• gerontodon (i)
• Akita538 (ij)

gerontodon (i)

Well that's where I can sympathise with the atheists. I can't honestly hold fast to the bible being completely literally true, so I find it hard to imagine there's a moral obligation to do so.

I accept that it takes strength of character to have that belief, but I don't see that as a logical argument for it *in itself*, nor a reason to think that I'm logically inconsistent in being accepting of intelligent design, open to the possibility of special, or gap creationism, whilst not a christian.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I can't honestly hold fast to the bible being completely literally true"

Where is the problem?

"I accept that it takes strength of character to have that belief"

Just enough not to cave in for "peer pressure" even if repeated.

"whilst not a christian."

Well, then you have a general problem of disbelief, not just about Biblical literalism.

gerontodon

''Where is the problem?'' Well for one thing, I don't think that 10,000 is long enough for dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts to have come and gone. For another, the closest I feel I've come to understanding the concept of Christ's redemption of humanity is through gnostic explanations.

I have a 'general problem' if I'm wrong my disbelief is morally wrong-however I would dispute that I'ma spiritual shopper going along with peer pressure.

Intelligent design is not exactly trendy in Britain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I don't think that 10,000 is long enough for dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts to have come and gone."

It is short for them to have evolved, but not to have been created. And since some hunting has helped extinction on its way. No problem there.

"For another, the closest I feel I've come to understanding the concept of Christ's redemption of humanity is through gnostic explanations."

That is a problem of unbelief or wrongbelief.

"Intelligent design is not exactly trendy in Britain."

But peer pressure from other Brits has nothing to do with your stance, right ...? Right ...?

Answered four times:

• gerontodon 1 a
• gerontodon 1 b
• gerontodon 2
• bluebottle99 B
  (while bluebottle99 A is for an earlier one)

gerontodon 1 a

If you're asking my opinion on that, then I think it's wrong, wrong.

It's possible that there's a box I'm unable to think outsided of, but I think that's unfalsifiable, and theoretically possible for everyone. I rarely meet anyone who doesn't belong to a world religion and is also radically skeptical of the academic consensus on abiogenesis or evolution, so peer pressure doesn't have much to do with it. It might have something to do with how long it took to arrive at some conclusions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's possible that there's a box I'm unable to think outsided of, but I think that's unfalsifiable, and theoretically possible for everyone."

I do not think anyone is genuinely unable to think outside his box.

"I rarely meet anyone who doesn't belong to a world religion and is also radically skeptical of the academic consensus on abiogenesis or evolution"

And if "academic consensus" is another world religion?

gerontodon

I do accept that geocentrism is quite radical- that's not an argument in itself though.

I think it can effectively be, but you misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that such scepticsim hs an irrational basis- exactly the opposite. I was denying that my position has much to do with peer pressure. If I was either an evolution sceptic *and* a Ch ristian, or an atheist, or a Christian who accepts neo-darwinism, and is practically a philosophical materialist (as contradictory as that is), then I would find a *lot* more people to agree with me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, ok.

gerontodon 1 b

1

Of course I meant that your insinuation that peer pressure *has* a lot to do with my stance is what's 'wrong wrong'.

Regarding your point that animals could have been created quickly-that wasn't really my point. I'm agnostic about common descent, I lena towards some kind of gap creationism, which would have been effectively instances of 'special creation', in that the new information could not have a natural source but could have also been developments in some way from what went before.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Point taken.

gerontodon 2

2

What I meant by saying that 10,000 years is not enough time for all those beasts to have come and gone is, that given we only know much about around 6,000-8,000 years of human history, I find it hard to believe that all that natural history could be either crammed into 2-4,000 years, or have been unrecorded.

I think a lot of history probably has been suppressed, but I don't think the coming and going of significantly different kinds of fauna over the last few thousand years could have been.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Most recorded history does not record natural history.

The demise of the Dodo bird is recorded because the English sailors who ate the last (or nearly last) were recorded.

Also, what if records took the form of heros fighting and killing dragons?

bluebottle99 A

Answering "Well, then you have a general problem of disbelief, not just about Biblical literalism."

@Hans

What people 'believe' is irrelevant in the modern world.

Hanging on to superstitious stone-age beliefs in the 21st century is laughable and anyone who does so should be ridiculed and rightly so.

Denial of FACTS is a combination of both intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance.

Start getting yourself educated, you'll never look back, trust me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was once what you called "educated".

I started getting a Christian education at nine, and I have not looked back. Trust me.

What is relevant or irrelevant, laughable or serious to the Western World élite of 21 C. is irrelevant to my beliefs. Evidence is what counts, including Biblical not least.

"Denial of FACTS is a combination of both intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance."

We agree on that one. What does that say of you?

bluebottle99 B

Answering "And since some hunting has helped extinction on its way. No problem there."

@Hans

What hunting?

You claim that T-rex was a vegetarian?

LOL!

TheDileas

You were educated when you were 8? :D

Good one!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was an evolutionist geek at six, and at eight I knew the modern theories about galaxies and how stars are formed and the role played by gravitation.

Had to have something to do at eight when my (also geekish) grandpa passed away.

Point is, it is only since a little before nine that I am what you consider uneducated, i e a Bible believer.

I think my usage of the words is understandable, and justified by your own usage of them in previous comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hunting done by men to get rid of T Rex after they ceased to be vegetarian and started becoming a serious nuisance.

john clewes

LMFAO!!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!!! WAAAAAGH!!!! LMFAO!!! Congratulations bollockbrain,that is by far the funniest comment EVER posted on these pages,and rest assured a print off will appear on the notice board of a world famous natural history museum first thing in the morning for my esteemed colleagues general amusement. More of the same please,an appreciative audience eagerly awaits your next pearls of wisdom. lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Feel free to let them have a print out of the whole debate as far as I have had the time and energy to trace it then.

assortedretorts . blogspot . com/2013/10/to-unbalanced-anti­-yec-priest-and-his . html

assortedretorts . blogspot . com/2013/10/continuing-debate-­on-biblical-authority . html

It is (from my standpoint at least, cannot speak for all codebaters) made for printing, for republishing on paper.

Enjoy!

Akita538 (ij)

Science doesn't make a lie of anything in the bible. It takes the literalism of 'creationists' to portray the bible as a book of lies.

If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God's works, rather than men's works? The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible itself.

Unlike biblical interpretation, creation would exist even if no man ever had.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Science doesn't make a lie of anything in the Bible."

Science no, pseudo-science would if it were true.

"It takes the literalism of 'creationists' to portray the bible as a book of lies."

It takes old-earth scenarios and heliocentrism to portray it as a book of lies.

"If you believe God created the universe, then why not choose to believe God's works, rather than men's works?"

Universe and Bible are both God's works.

Certain wrongful interpretations of the Universe are not.

"The literalist interpretation of the bible is nowhere to be found in the bible itself."

Jesus took a recent creation and the genealogies literally enough in Mark 10:6, as even Hovind knows.

What is not in Bible is "Bible alone".

Akita538 (to first half)

Worthless assertions supported by nothng more than ignorant prejudice.

More of your usual, in fact!

You specialise in pointless assumptions with no more to support them than an infinite number of *other* pointless assumptions. Your droolings about geocentrism are an example of pseudoscience - unfalsifiable fictions designed to support a conclusion you started off with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Geocentrism is not a conclusion. It is an observation.

It is Heliocentrism that is a conclusion, and one not supported by the observations as such, but only by observations filtered through your antitheist bias in the natural sciences.

Your "science" compromise with "non-literal Bible" or even calling Bible man's work is somewhat reminding of Galileo's writings to Foscari. It might have been very well for his life he did not publish those but was only tried for Dialogo and Saggiatore.

Under other video you claimed up to 480 AD no Christian had to take the Bible literally. Now that is a very pointless assumption. It is also a factoid you have not backed up with any reference from actual Church History.

Answered three times

• Akita538 α
• Akita538 β
• Akita538 γ

Akita538 α

"you claimed up to 480 AD no Christian had to take the Bible literally"

No. I didn't say that.

I have pointed out that slavish literalism was clearly not obligatory in 480AD and that, in terms of placing value on facts, thinking was in some ways at a higher level than that found amongst modern day 'creationists'.

'Creationism' is a recent, shallow-rooted phenomenon based on hysterical denial of facts that people in earlier ages could not have known - wilful rather than innocent ignorance!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"that slavish literalism was clearly not obligatory in 480AD"

The fact please.

I mistrust your resumé of it.

Your take on creationism:

"based on hysterical denial of facts that people in earlier ages could not have known"

Could God have known them and is He the main author of the Bible over and above the hagiographers? Pope Leo XIII thought so.

Wait, 480 AD, are you referring to the St Augustine quote?

He was saying something about the flat earth theory. Or possibly about people reading the book of Henoch and concluding the natural solar year is (still) 364 days, as well.

He was himself a YEC as well as a Geocentric.

And he did not admit that flat earth was actually literally stated in Bible. He said "presumably".

Akita538

His point was that Christians should be concerned with what is actually true, and that they shouldn't present ignorant opinions as being part of their faith.

There were no 'creationists' before it became clear that Genesis could not be 100% literal. Before then people accepted the Genesis account as the best explanation.

They didn't fear the truth, and felt no need to construct an elaborate web of lies to support their beliefs. So they were in no way 'creationists'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

creavsevolu. blogspot. com/2013/10/was-st-augustine-a­gainst-literalism. html

On what St Augustine said and meant [the link].

"Before then people accepted the Genesis account as the best explanation."

As creationists still do.

"They didn't fear the truth, and felt no need to construct an elaborate web of lies to support their beliefs. So they were in no way 'creationists'."

That is a calumny about what creationists are.

Akita538 β

There is no "antitheist bias in the natural sciences". They confine themselves to what can be concluded from accurate observation of what can be observed.

Inevitably this means that the answer may be "we don't know", but it is never "God did it". Many scientists are Christians and would find your ignorant remark somewhat depressing.

Geocentrism was merely an ignorant assumption resulting from poor observation and a lack of thought.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you exclude explanation of daily rotation by saying explanation that God rotates Universe for us cannot be true, that constitutes an antitheist bias. Sometimes a k a atheistic methodology. Or "getting the natural explanation" even if it is not the correct one.

Dito for excluding angels as movers of stars (see St Thomas Aquinas' take on Day Four, Question 70).

Akita538

No. It is adopting the economical explanation. The one where a tiny part of the universe rotates, rather than the vanity of assuming that everything else must revolve around the earth.

The one that fits with the (God-given?) laws of nature actually being consistent, and does not require God to practise an infantile deception on a massive scale to fake the appearance of heliocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both fit the laws of nature.

Earth being still in the centre is not vanity but modesty. It is the periphery which is closer to God's both action and splendour.

No deception is involved in Geocentrism except letting those who wish to deceive themselves.

Parallax is not among the first impressions everyone gets about the Universe and it is not only the parallactic explanation of it which is logical.

If there is "backward parallax" it is even illogical.

Two corrections:

To myself: Both fit the laws of nature. - Well, at least the Geocentric model does assuming there is a God. Who can turn everything around us.

To you: "the vanity of assuming that everything else must revolve around the earth."

You should rather say the honesty of observing that whether it has to or not, it actually does.

At least till that is proven wrong, which only atheism could.

Akita538

All you have is lies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have at least plenty of prejudice.

Here is some on negative parallax:

realityreviewed. com/Negative%20parallax. htm

Akita538 γ

There is no doubt that the bible is man's work. You would have to be demented to think otherwise. Four gospels? Possibly a clue?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I acknowledge the Bible includes the work of MEN.

This does not mean it is per se the work of MAN (as opposed to God).

john clewes

Icannot believe in this day and age how any sane logically thinking person can support the ludicrous content of an absurd collection of farcical fairy stories concocted by superstitious bronze age nomads,let alone claim the content has some mystical conection with an invisible supernatural god monster.Even modern day church leaders dismiss the OT as allegorical parables, devoid of one shred of truth,and yet religio-creatards still maintain every word is factual. Man created gods,not vice-vresa.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"in this day and age" vs "superstitious bronze age nomads"

Sounds like you idolise the time you live in and diabolise not only a specific other time abut anyone living in it plus specifically nomads living in it. That is not my deal.

"church leaders dismiss the OT as allegorical parables, devoid of one shred of truth"

Not any leader of my Church. The so called priest in the video is an Anglican and even he might balk at what you say. Excepting the first chapters of Genesis. (Might ...)

john clewes

Try the archishops of York,Westminster and Canterbury for size,or don't they count on your list of pro creatard clergy?? Lets not mince words,your entire rather pathetic argument attempts to undermine evolution and give credibility to the preposterous idea the earth is 6000 years old,but surely even you must realise there is no point whatsoever locking the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted, Like it or not EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact,taught in schools worldwide.OK?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"archishops of York,Westminster and Canterbury"

Sounds like Anglicans, sham continuations of the Catholic Clergy before the so called Reformation.

They are as said not leaders of my Church. I am Catholic.

"EVOLUTION is ... taught in schools worldwide."

Sure. There are plenty of teachers who deserve hanging.

"even you must realise there is no point whatsoever locking the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted"

A world wide fad is something to argue against, however much world wide it were. A real fact one should never argue against, however few who believe it. Evolution gaining social support does not equal evolution gaining proof.

Answered twice

• john clewes α
• Magorax β

john clewes α

Sorry old chap,but in this case it most certainly does, How on earth can you{whoever or whatever you are} claim 95% of the worlds leading scientists are wrong,and evolution is a mere world wide fad??? You said it yourself birdbrain,one should never argue against a real fact,and as evolution falls into that category,why not learn to live with it?? Has the UK govt. been influenced by this so called fad when declaring evolution be iaught in all state schools as a recognised science subject? Def NOT

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Has the UK govt. been influenced by this so called fad when declaring evolution be iaught in all state schools as a recognised science subject?"

Yes, why not?

Since Nero and Herod, since Julian the Apostate and since Elisabeth and William of Orange, not to mention Lenin (who also introduced evolution in curriculum, remember) we Catholic Christians have a certain suspicion about rulers.

Magorax β

" Evolution gaining social support does not equal evolution gaining proof."

You have that a little backwards (Purposely, I'm quite sure). It's gaining social support precisely because it's gaining proof. Your personal incredulity amounts to nothing more than pissing into the wind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A system may gain social support because it gains proof or for other reasons.

When Christianity gained social support, it gained new proof in each miracle.

When Evolution gained social support, it used things like modern indoctrination machines, like compulsory state scheduled school systems.

IV

AdamA

What's interesting is St Augustine wrote about evolution way back in the 5th and Pope Pius XII said believing in evolution is fine and Pope John Paul II said it is the most likely explanation known.

It seems to be mainly non denominationals and Pentecostals that have a problem with evolution because they believe in Biblical Literalism which is deemed a 19th century American heresy from Upstate New York

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What's interesting is St Augustine wrote about evolution way back in the 5th"

Well, no. He was a Young Earth Creationist.

"Pope Pius XII said believing in evolution is fine"

Well no, Humani Generis said the learned may debate the question and take both sides on whether Adam's body evolved from previous living matter or not.

It does not contain a word about actually as a faithful believing evolution.

"Biblical Literalism which is deemed a 19th century American heresy from Upstate New York"

How come that in that sense all Church Fathers (canonised such) were Biblical Literalists?