Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

blatham wrote:

real life said
Quote:
Aside from the fact that you misunderstand the account of the Garden of Eden, (where does it say there was a talking snake?),

"Now the serpent was more subtil 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?..." Gen chap 3 v 1

But perhaps it was mental telepathy. Or maybe he assumed Eve was deaf (a woman, after all) and so he signed the communication.

Or maybe your personal omniscience vests you with a unique and blessed access to the singular proper understanding of this text.

I would like to see real's response to blatham's post, above. I guess a "serpent" in the bible can be translated to mean almost anything to a christian reader.

0 Replies

ser·pent (sûrpnt)
n.
1. A reptile of the order Serpentes; a snake.
2. often Serpent
a. In the Bible, the creature that tempted Eve.
b. Satan.3. A subtle, sly, or treacherous person.
4. A firework that writhes while burning.
5. Music A deep-voiced wind instrument of serpentine shape, used principally from the 17th to 19th century, about 2.5 meters (8 feet) in length and made of brass or wood.
6. Serpent Serpens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin serpns, serpent-, from present participle of serpere, to creep.]

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Aside from the fact that you misunderstand the account of the Garden of Eden, (where does it say there was a talking snake?), I am more interested in your diagnosis of Christians as mentally ill, and curious as to what 'final solution' you may be interested in proposing

I said "creationists", not christians. Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

I don't consider "belief" in general to be delusional. But I do consider belief in fairy tales which are at odds with physical reality to be delusional. And so should everyone. Things like Noah's ark, garden of eden, angels and demons and young earth are clearly fantasies. We dismiss things like this in every day life as fantasy without question. Why should we feel any differently about such claims just because they are cloaked in mythology and rumored to have happened a long time ago.

And what should we do to fix it? How about we start with a good education in basic science and physics without interference from creationists trying to push their agenda onto the next generation in the form of ID (which is what this thread is about).

0 Replies

rosborne, Don't forget miracles; they are abundant in the fairy book.

0 Replies

rl-

Just as there are no answers to my post there are non forthcoming for your challenge on how to cure the proposed (by ros) mental illness of a large majority of Americans.

What is forthcoming is another load of bluster and bombast on subjects which the writers have no understanding of precisely because they cannot envisage intelligences greater than their own which are, if English usage is a criteria, distinctly average (About 100).

They know nothing of Orphism and Apollinianism and of how the former constitutes rejection of carnality and the latter the veneration of it. Nor do they know about the mysticism which honours the secret of life in doctrine,symbol and mime in Demeter cults which celebrated the moment of fertilization of plant, beast and man.

They have no sense of a force arising slowly out of prehistory and taking thousands of years to coalesce around an elite class and inventing education itself and centres of learning. They know nothing of Magian dualism caught between the Classical paganism and eastern religions which had no sense of the Faustian (Gothic) "active force" principle as is shown by how the Chinese garden art avoids an energy perspective and places horizon behind horizon and tempts the eye to wander aimlessly and where there is no sense of the technical conquest of nature as the Gothic drive into depth, the third dimension, clearly shows in all its art.

They know nothing of relevance to this topic.

I'll quote Spengler again on the young Gothic soul of around 1000 AD-

Quote:

The mythic world that thereupon formed itself around this young soal, an integer of force, will and direction seen under the symbol of Infinity, a stupendous action-into-distance, chasms of terror and of bliss suddenly opening up--it was all, for the elect of this early religiousness, something so entirely natural that they could not even detach themselves sufficiently to "know" it as a unit. They lived in it. To us, on the contrary, who are separated from these ancestors by thirty generations, this world seems so alien and overpowering that we always seek to grasp it in detail, and so misunderstand its wholeness and undividedness.

The father-godhead men felt as Force itself, eternal, grand, and ever-present activity, sacred causality, which could scarcely assume any form comprehensible by human eyes.

They think fertilisation is explained by calling it fertilisation.

What do any of them know about tao or yin/yang, or of kwei/sen?

If they can't see it and label it it doesn't exist. Crickey!! we would still be swinging in the trees if anti-IDers had triumphed.

0 Replies

Your problem, spendi, is you don't know what a adhominem is when you use it.

0 Replies

I don't see how anti-IDers can continue making fools of themselves in front of our viewers, who cannot possibly fail to notice their inability to answer the questions that have been put to them, and presenting their seeming belief that all this pedantic, childish nonsense they put out, all of which has been heard too often to be of interest, will distract viewers from their utter bankruptcy of thought.

Sarcasm is not known as the lowest form of wit for nothing.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Your problem, spendi, is you don't know what a adhominem is when you use it.

There you go. More snow. No answers. No justification. Just a blurt.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:
Your problem, spendi, is you don't know what a adhominem is when you use it.

There you go. More snow. No answers. No justification. Just a blurt.

Your's isn't even snow. I doubt very much you even know what snow looks and feels like.

0 Replies

Why don't you try writing something interesting c.i.?

I can answer the questions. They might not be the right answers but I wouldn't be frightened of offering them if I was on your side. There wouldn't be any monogamy and that's for sure. Such an institution runs counter to all known scientific study of nature. Social consequences being a human thing is a bit different.

I certainly wouldn't keep coming on here to say nothing.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't see how anti-IDers can continue making fools of themselves in front of OUR viewers, who cannot possibly fail to notice their inability to answer the questions that have been put to them, and presenting their seeming belief that all this pedantic, childish nonsense they put out, all of which has been heard too often to be of interest, will distract viewers from their utter bankruptcy of thought.

Sarcasm is not known as the lowest form of wit for nothing.

Could you be so kind as to list these questions, ill be damned if I'm gonna sieve through 1200+ pages to find them all.

I'm still on the train of thought of "ID requires a belief in god, therefor, if you introduce it into the school curriculum, your basically advocating church schools." Is this a fair observation? Or have I too gone a bit wacky.

OUR viewers? Anti-IDers? Sounds like your on a War path @_o

Ok, ok, so whats this thread actually achieving? Sounds like just another religion thread where nobody can prove anything and the whole thread turns into a 2000 page ranting centre.

Person A: This is Truth!!!
Person B: Prove it!!!
Person A: Prove that my truth is false!!!
Person B: Prove that I have to falsify your truths in-order for you to be proven wrong?!?
Person A: Yes.
------short interval------
Person A: Ahaha, you cant prove that my truth is false therefor my belief is truth, I am win.

Or something like that, mabee I drink to much, bah who cares, Church schools for a stronger, more in-breed america!!!

*xenoche goes back to doing what he was doing*, but am I?? Or is that a lie and I'm really going to do SOMETHING ELSE? Again who cares, ID sounds pretty hippy anyway(not that I'm against hippies, my Mum is one).

One thing is for sure, we are running out of room, ideas, resources to the point that its natural to look to the sky for answers, but as always its big, dark and void of anything that could be considered useful within our small domain of time in which our lives occupy. Evolution and ID are equally un-consequential in the fact that if ether were found to be absolute truths, what would change? From where I'm sitting they just seem like ideas that are interesting, but have no use in the current climate of our present situation, when the biggest clear and present dangers are upon us we will still be squabbling about the existence of the deities that helped our ancestors sleep at night.

spendius wrote:

I certainly wouldn't keep coming on here to say nothing.

spendius wrote:

Sarcasm is not known as the lowest form of wit for nothing.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ser·pent (sûrpnt)
n.
1. A reptile of the order Serpentes; a snake.
2. often Serpent
a. In the Bible, the creature that tempted Eve.
b. Satan.3. A subtle, sly, or treacherous person.
4. A firework that writhes while burning.
5. Music A deep-voiced wind instrument of serpentine shape, used principally from the 17th to 19th century, about 2.5 meters (8 feet) in length and made of brass or wood.
6. Serpent Serpens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin serpns, serpent-, from present participle of serpere, to creep.]

Imposter,

Thank you for posting these definitions.

It should be clear from this post that 'snake' is not the only possible definition of 'serpent'.

I appreciate your assist.

0 Replies

real, You're welcome; you do notice, however, that the "other" definition is used only by "christians,' when it's not a creature that crawls on the surface; namely, a snake.

0 Replies

We could have called a creature that crawls on the surface any old thing if we had just been in want of a word. There's loads of redundant vowel and consonant combinations.

I'll go for the firework that writhes while burning.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, You're welcome; you do notice, however, that the "other" definition is used only by "christians,' when it's not a creature that crawls on the surface; namely, a snake.

Since the context is the OT, why would that be unusual?

The meaning of words is often determined by it's context, is it not?

When someone says 'that's cool', the context (whether the speaker is a jazz musician at a jam session , or a refrigeration technician on the job) would help determine the speaker's meaning, no?

btw Jews use the OT too, Imposter. Not just Christians.

0 Replies

real, You missed this: [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin serpns, serpent-, from present participle of serpere, to creep.]

We're not talking Hebrew.

0 Replies

Correct.

We are talking the 3rd chapter of Genesis as recorded in the English translation of the Bible.

How perceptive of you.....................

What's your point? That the Hebrew OT doesn't use the English word 'serpent' just as it doesn't use the English word 'Garden' or the English word 'tempt' or the English word 'tree' or the English word 'voice' .............?

Yah, no kidding. The OT was originally written in Hebrew.

You're a wealth of knowledge.

0 Replies

Thank you Real Life for completely missing the point that when literally interpreting a text, you need to go back to the earliest sources of said text and interpret it in its original language. Words will often have multiple meanings, and when one of the meanings of a Hebrew word is matched up with one of the meanings of an English word, you've not only lost some of the original possible meanings but you've also added some new ones.

0 Replies

If there was a bit of a hiccup and we had to go through a few hundred years of chaos before we got organised again and we lost most of our art and literary works and then we got going again and some old film was found buried and got going again and Fred McMurray called Barbara Stanwyk a "snake in the grass" the word snake would go into usage for a devious looker I think. It would be a fitting memorial to Ms Stanwyk who was one of those characters, like Salome, who it is dangerous to get the hots for.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

Thank you Real Life for completely missing the point that when literally interpreting a text.......

You apparently missed my point. I don't interpret it literally.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know