Bible Buffet (Run-off From Noah's Flood)

Do you not see the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude from atheists? From evolutionists? Richard Dawkins, an atheist/evolutionist, has that attitude. Kenneth Miller, a theistic evolutionist, has it. Since they have conflicting "I'm right, you're wrong" opinions on what guided evolution, does that make you have something against evolution?I'll bet your answer is no, because you believe the basics of evolution to be true, and the details of Dawkin's vs Miller's attitudes are minor. In the same way, Christians believe in salvation through Christ's works, and the details in the natural history, and human behavior requirements written in the Bible are minor details.So my point is, I think your reason to "have something against" religion only because of the actions of some religious people is shallow, if that's your only reason. I'd bet you probably have other reasons.I don't have something against atheism only because of the arrogance of Dawkins, or what I believe to be the phoniness of Miller. I have other reasons.

The Bible has basics, the Bible has details. Evolution has basics, evolution has details. Do you apply equal standards to evolutionists, even as none of them can know if their exact details of how evolution happens/happened are valid? None of THEM can claim the truth either, yet somehow, they all do.

That's the claim, but everyone has to determine for themselves how truthful it is. I see ~evidence~ that evolution is absolute in the scientific/atheist community.

It goes both ways in both subjects. Scripture is considered pretty strong evidence by many, especially when some of it is backed up by archaeology. When atheists in science speculate about what happened billions of years ago, it is dogma far more than it is evidence. Do you have figures on how many of those DO NOT BELIEVE in salvation through Christ's works? Or did you disregard what I said about basics vs details? To the same extent that science should be able to tell if Dawkins, or Miller, is right or wrong?

Or maybe I picked exactly the right one. It can show the knee-jerk emotion that often immediately goes into high gear on these types of atheist forums. WHERE DID I REFERENCE A GLOBAL FLOOD? I have evidence, but only for what I actually said, not for the straw man that you built.http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/joseph.htm

quote:

---

In a word, it appears that the biblical, historical, and archaeological data are best served by theorizing that it was a Hyksos monarch before whom Joseph stood as an interpreter of dreams (Gen. 41:14-37) and who later ceded a choice parcel of land (Goshen) to Joseph's family (Gen. 47:6). According to such a theory, the "new king" of Exodus 1:8 would have been one of the native Egyptian monarchs of the New Kingdom who, as part of his Hyksos purge, resolutely refused to recognize the validity of the Goshen land grant. Discerning in the Israelites a multitude who might very well join with his Asiatic enemies in war, this new king moreover acted quickly to enslave the Israelites.

---

When it comes to analyzing history of several thousand years ago, archaeological evidence is useful in determining influences in building design, town layouts, pottery styles, and burial practices. Bones from animal sacrifices have actually been found in places that the Bible indicates they should be found. That supports the statement I made above. Again, I did not refer to the flood.

This is all well and good, if you believe that the realms of time and rearrangement can explain all of reality. That if humans can’t understand something, it doesn’t exist/never did exist. That there can’t be a realm above and beyond time, or that matter can’t have an origin without some type of rearrangement, an explosion, or 'big bang'. You’re right — it wouldn’t. Biblical literalists don’t consider themselves little gods. They believe that some things go beyond human understanding. And other humans don’t convince them otherwise, no matter how loudly those other humans claim "science is right and religion is wrong".

I understand all that — it doesn’t contradict what I said at all. You said Miller’s theologyis irrelevant to science. You didn’t say it, but I’m sure you would also say that Dawkins atheism is also irrelevant to science. So both their theologies are minor details, in how they relate to Dawkins and Millers intersection of factual knowledge and study of science. But their differing worldview beliefs are not minor details to them personally. If we’re talking about members of two different Christian denominations that believe in salvation through Christ’s works as being central to Christianity, yes that’s what I’m saying. If one likes to drink beer and the other thinks it’s sinful to drink beer, those differences are comparable to the scientific differences in Dawkins vs Miller’s worlviews. They could sit side by side at a Catholic church service without throwing punches. I’m sure there’s nothing I could say that would keep you from calling me names. When it comes to behavior requirements, it's important to recognize the differences in how a person chooses to behave, or advise he/she chooses to give others, vs. politically/societally mandated behavior. These issues are traditional/political, more than they are religious. There are probably many atheists who agree that new social experimentation - new and more special rights than ever before for things like abortion and homosexuality may not be good for a society. They are not minor to me in how I live my life personally, but they are minor to me in how they are applied politically. I have no desire for my exact religious beliefs to be the central part of societal structure. Some people do, from every belief system, be it religious or non-religious. But I believe they’re in the minority. I think most U.S. citizens like the neutrality that is established in the U.S. founding documents.To answer your question, I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I very occasionally attend a service at a Catholic, Baptist, or Methodist church. For no real reason other than to join a friend or relative, or satisfy a minor curiosity about a minor detail. Now you’ve gotten a positive answer. Most all the denominations you specify have gathered peacefully at Billy Graham crusades at huge stadiums, and have visited the Answers In Genesis museum in Kentucky at one time or another. If you can describe more volume and numbers at scientific meetings/conferences than I can in multi-denominational Christian meetings/conferences, it’s because public funding isn’t involved in religious meetings to the extent that it is in scientific meetings. There is a difference between personal belief schisms, vs profit seeking scientific schisms. You can say that there’s politics and profit in the personal belief promotion business, and I can say there’s even bigger politics and profit in the atheist scientific promotion businesss. Why is it bigger? Because it’s not separated from state.

I didn’t misconstrue it - the word absolute has nothing to do with being damned. I thought you were using the word absolute the way I’ve seen atheists use it against religion many times, that religion is an unchangeable conclusion reached by faith. Evolution combined with some form of godless abiogenesis is an unchangeable conclusion reached by faith throughout most of the scientific community.