Reasons for Creationist Persistence

Human nature is a big part of the equation and I strongly agree that Biblical Creationism is a stumbling block to progressive thought.Perhaps in a larger context and at the core of the argument is the idea of whether or not God is personable, knowable, and has any relevance to modern ideas and day to day realities.Is It Science?Well...is it scientific to have questions about spiritual reality?

The way it is related the only reason they don't say 'from men' is for fear of the reaction from the populace. That hardly makes their answer honest.We would only be in the same situation if questioning the divine authorship of the bible was likely to result in the disfavor of some faction whose good opinion was required.Are you most honest when you admit that you don't know that the gospel wasn't written by the flying spaghetti monster? This sort of 'last Thursdayism' seems the antithesis of a productive approach to anything, merely abrogating the very possibility of knowledge, beyond the fundamental Cartesian 'Cogito ergo sum'.TTFN,WK

But so far what you have presented has been. Irrelevant.The source you quoted was lying, was committing a fraud, was misdirecting the audiences attention and was asserting a falsehood.You are totally refusing to even address the issues in the very material you presented.You are also pulling the old Gish Gallop. Instead of addressing the issue you simply deny there was a problem and then toss out yet another pile of spaghetti. Why? Only if YOU wrote what my imagined answer would be.Let's look at your answer as YOU provided them. What is it in the passages that provides any support for your position? Do you know the required qualification for a Priest or to preach in the Temple during Jesus life? No where in the passage does anyone answer his question. But no one has said that; I certainly have not said that. What I have done is analyze the material that YOU provided and pointed out exactly how it was either a lie or willfully ignorant, which is simply lying to oneself.Deal with it. Very unlikely and actually a really ignorant assertion. This goes back to the very first part of the quote from Matthew... Now let me ask you a question.Why would the priests ask that question?Finally you posted this jewel. Come on Phat. Again, that is totally refuted by the very material you presented. Read it. Stop just grabbing soundbites.From your quote. There is no honesty in their response. Like today's Biblical Christian Cult of Ignorance Preachers, they based their answer not on the merit of the question itself, but rather on the perceived results of a given response.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So in other words, are you telling me that a scientific approach would never presuppose that a Creator existed in the form of a wise man 2000 years ago? With that sort of approach, all that we can then do will be to dismiss the godidit hypothesis and move on to human derived equations. I can never get a fair hearing on the scientific review board because they will always reject my initial positive truth claim.I suppose that I should quit bothering them....they may someday figure it all out anyway.

Of course. Thank God! Of course. Thank God. Of course you can get a fair hearing. Even your "initial positive truth claim" can be considered if you can provided sufficient support for it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And of course I can't. But why do spiritual truth claims need to be subject to empirical evidence?

Then how do you separate them form illusion or delusion?Edited by Theodoric, : forgot an n

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you read what your write?Did you ask "But why do spiritual truth claims need to be subject to empirical evidence?"Are you making a claim and are you asserting that the claim is true?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I quite agree that there is a distinction between knowledge and belief. So its a battle for a worldview that favors literal Biblical interpretation and perhaps a bit of a religious Theocracy? God help us if Sarah Palin gets their support! Yet these Biblical Creationists insist that their view be scientifically validated! Which to me is impossible. And as long as they insist that education present both sides, there will always be controversy. Its sad why these people are scared of what their children might learn. They seem to think that there is a secret plot by the devil to teach a big lie. OK, but how far should a parent go? What if they end up with kids who even doubt whether God is real? Even if thats a good thing, it may not seem like a good thing for those hopeful parents. I agree. In fact, I often wonder why I nget rejected by my fellow christian believers if I even dare challenge the Bible? Is not God big enough to adopt me anyway?

I suppose that without support, I cant even make a truth claim about the presupposition of God. We dont want to become a nation of honest agnostics, however. Our beliefs are important to our sanity.(or insanity)