Why Supporters of Intelligent Design are "Christian" Heretics

[SandChigger]

In the "Origin of Life: Another Great Thread For Me to Proselytize From", in response to the question "How old is the Earth?"...

Neither the question that you have posed, nor the accusation of heresy that you have made has any bearing whatsoever on the topic under discussion. So I'll remind you, yet  again, to limit your questions to those that are actually relevant to the topic.

OK, the heresy of Intelligent Design supporters is the topic of this thread and the question is directly relevant.

So, once more, <b>how old, Hwi, is the Earth?</b>

[Dunenewt]

4.54 billion years?

[Dante]

[arnoldo]

This thread is an obvious conflation of Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design  ::)

[Dante]

Not as such. The question was posed because followers of ID assert that the ~4.6 billion years since the Earth formed has been insufficient for natural means to produce life, and therefore God must have done it. Most Young Earthers follow the bible, which (more or less) states that the Earth is about six thousand years old.

Therefore one cannot be a strict follower of the bible and a supporter of ID. The question, then, determines which group the answerer falls into. If they say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, as ID acknowledges, they are a heretic. If they say that it's about 6000, they're not a heretic but they also lose a whole lot of credibility.

It pays to do your research.

[SandChigger]

It pays to do your research.

Quite. (Arnoldo, dear, you really should hold your tongue in threads you're not quite ready to participate in. But I am honestly pleased to see you posting more here!)

Since Sister Hwi of the New Revelation seems to be a supporter of ID, she either rejects or fudges a convenient interpretation for passages in the Old Testament that directly conflict with the scientific results ID is purported to address. She therefore implicitly accepts that those results have enough validity that they <b>must</b> be addressed. For her, the Word of God, the Bible, is insufficient, and must be bolstered by the statistical legerdemain and cleverly mined quotes of great scientists that we have seen her post here. For these things, the majority of good "Christians" over the last two millennia would have deemed her a heretic. I, who was raised and confirmed in the Methodist Church and who believed myself a good "Christian" through most of my teen years, consider her a heretic. Is there an honest "Christian" here who doesn't?

[Wolf]

Since Sister Hwi of the New Revelation ...

More "Stranger in a Strange Land" references, I see. Props.

[arnoldo]

Not as such. The question was posed because followers of ID assert that the ~4.6 billion years since the Earth formed has been insufficient for natural means to produce life, and therefore God must have done it. Most Young Earthers follow the bible, which (more or less) states that the Earth is about six thousand years old.

The bible does not say (either more or less) that the earth is six thousand years old.

Therefore one cannot be a strict follower of the bible and a supporter of ID.

ID supporters would disagree with your opinion.

The question, then, determines which group the answerer falls into. If they say that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, as ID acknowledges, they are a heretic. If they say that it's about 6000, they're not a heretic but they also lose a whole lot of credibility.

False dilema.

It pays to do your research.

The only research required for this thread is to identify the logical fallacies  ;)

[Dante]

The bible does not say (either more or less) that the earth is six thousand years old.

Alright, so where do the Young Earthers get their figure?

ID supporters would disagree with your opinion.

Fortunately, their disagreement only encourages me.

False dilema.

"Dilemma," and no it isn't. One can support ID's "the Earth is old but God made stuff" point of view, or the Creationists' "The Earth is young and God made stuff" point of view. Not both. Unless you propose a new argument whereby the Earth is both 4.6 billion and 6 thousand years old at the same time?

The only research required for this thread is to identify the logical fallacies  ;)

I can see we're off to a flying start.

[SandChigger]

One thing y'all should know about arnoldo is that he likes to throw around terms like "false dilema" [sic; sometimes he even gets the spelling right] and "logical fallacy", without understanding when or whether they actually apply in a given situation.

"Ad hominem" is another favorite, right arnoldo? Is this an example? :)

[Dante]

Oh SandChigger. Have you been hitting the Google again? You know a gentleman doesn't do that until at least the second date.

[SandChigger]

Google? What do you mean? About what? Our new friend here?

Oh, Heavens no! We go WAY back. This is no tremulous second date, far from it. We've been ALL the way, several times.

[Dante]

Oh, an old flame following you around, making your life difficult for no reason other than spite? Yeah, I know how that goes.

[SandChigger]

Oh, don't let me <i>commencer</i>! :P

[athanasios]

Alright, so where do the Young Earthers get their figure?

From their heads!

If you count genealogies dates in the Bible you will come to a ~6000 years of man on earth.

BUT!

Are these genealogies complete or are there missing names in between? A fanatic will take the above dates literal and condemn those who hold the latter view as heretics.

It is evident that this thread is USELESS. I don't give a damn sh** if a fanatic will consider me a heretic.

I have to 'repeat' a few thing about dates:

Even if 6000 years were correct, this does not imply that earth is only 6000 years old.

At first we have to add the creative dates. Some Christians take them as literal 24hour days, so they wouldn't add much to the sum. Other Christians, again arbitrarily, assume that each creative date was 7000 - 10000 years. So we get a total of 48000 - 69000 years. Again one of the same. But if we accept scientific data these creative days were much much longer.

BUT, planet Earth and the Universe, according to the opening verses of Genesis, preexisted the 'creative days'.

[Dante]

So what you're saying is... 4.6 billion?

[athanasios]

Not what "I", but what science tells us.

[Dante]

Wonderful. Now if the person to whom the question was actually directed would answer, we could move on.

[SandChigger]

From their heads!

If you count genealogies dates in the Bible you will come to a ~6000 years of man on earth.

BUT!

Are these genealogies complete or are there missing names in between? A fanatic will take the above dates literal and condemn those who hold the latter view as heretics.

It is evident that this thread is USELESS. I don't give a damn sh** if a fanatic will consider me a heretic.

I have to 'repeat' a few thing about dates:

Even if 6000 years were correct, this does not imply that earth is only 6000 years old.

At first we have to add the creative dates. Some Christians take them as literal 24hour days, so they wouldn't add much to the sum. Other Christians, again arbitrarily, assume that each creative date was 7000 - 10000 years. So we get a total of 48000 - 69000 years. Again one of the same. But if we accept scientific data these creative days were much much longer.

BUT, planet Earth and the Universe, according to the opening verses of Genesis, preexisted the 'creative days'.

I LOVE the mental gymnastics you people engage in to twist the text so that you can still claim you revere and believe in it while also accepting the results of scientific research. But as I've already mentioned in the other thread, the fact that you engage in such nonsense AT ALL shows that your faith in the Scripture has already been shaken. If you had no doubts, if you believed in the INSPIRED AND INERRANT TRUTH of the Scriptures with all your heart and all your mind and soul, you would deny Science.

<i>Y

[SandChigger]

So let's move on to Phase 2. :)

How about some quotes?

If revealed religions have revealed anything it is that they are usually wrong.

A knowledge of the true age of the Earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that funadmentalist do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically?

"How I Got Inclined towards Atheism" in <i>What Mad Pursuit</i>, his autobiography

Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based no on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.

"Discover Dialogue: Reversing Bad Truths", <i>Discover</i> (July 2003)

ONLY the rabid fundies reject the scientific results (age of Earth, evolution) outright. EVERYONE ELSE has made their compromise with The Devil.

Narrow is the gate.

[athanasios]

<i>Y

[SandChigger]

That is your own interpretation. I will not say more as the subject is covered by a quotation from the Bible in a post of another thread.

No, that is actually the interpretation of countless "Christians" over the last two millennia. And of Jews for longer.

Is this the quotation you are referring to?

More importantly, the Apostle Peter reminded us,

[athanasios]

Continue in your ridicule of apostle Peter. Not illiterate at all. He was well versed in the scriptures and was just quoting from Psalms:

For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past' date='

And as a watch during the night.[/b']

yesterday ~ a watch during the night

evening / morning [creative] day

And you want to interpret the creative days as literal 24 hour days. ::)

Ah, yes you brought to your support the Christians and the Jews over the last 2 millenia = (for the majority of them) murderers who spilled innocent blood in numerous wars.

I recommend a Bible study to you.

[SandChigger]

Continue in your ridicule of apostle Peter. Not illiterate at all. He was well versed in the scriptures and was just quoting from Psalms:

For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past,

And as a watch during the night.

yesterday ~ a watch during the night

evening / morning [creative] day

And you want to interpret the creative days as literal 24 hour days. ::)

And you actually believe that Peter composed those letters? ::)

Either way, I'm glad you brought up the original, because "not illiterate at all", "well versed in the scriptures" Peter kinda flubbed the meaning...

<b>K

[MrFlibble]

Ah, yes you brought to your support the Christians and the Jews over the last 2 millenia = (for the majority of them) murderers who spilled innocent blood in numerous wars.

Isn't this one of Dawkins' arguments? ???