Religious folk, do you literally interpret the Bible, Quran, Torah?

[Blackking]

Bible believing Christian here.

I take the Bible literally- as in I take it as literature. All literature has a genre and style, and the Bible is no exception. In order to interpret the Bible, one must be able to consider the kind of literature being put forth. The genres of the Bible include historical narratives, poetry, proverbs, didactic letters, apocalyptic prophecy, etc.. Unless you know the genre and form, you're missing the big picture. When I read Shakespeare, if I don't understand Macbeth to be a Tragedy or wrongly assume that Midsummer's Night Dream is a History instead of a Comedy, I'm missing the author's intent.

I think this is the biggest problem for skeptics and believers alike. Many skeptics have the false assumption that the Bible is a book of dos and don'ts conjured up in the minds of a few men. Most don't realize that it is 66 books written over the course of 1,500 years by a plethora of authors. Those authors used different styles, figures of speech, and genres. Without this proper understanding, skeptics mock the Bible as espousing a talking snake, and believers think heaven has literal streets of gold.

Also, let's note that most people don't have this proper understanding. Just because something isn't literal doesn't mean it's not powerful... You're a fool if you can't see the gems in the Bible. People out here like "hehe Jesus thinks Camels can fit through needle heads... u guys are idiots, smh"

 

[intilectual recipricol]

I'm sorry, I don't know what DOS stands for.

I reject evolution for 4 primary reasons.

First, I think the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. With all of the millions of fossils found, there is not one single fossil that shows a verifiable transition from one species to another. Alot of Darwin's theory posits the supposed evolution of fish becoming reptiles, then becoming birds, and apes becoming humans. And I think we can agree that in this age of scientific enlightenment it is common knowledge that these transitions do not exist.

Ah, in other words you dont understand evolution. EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. This can be shown through color.

Where in that photo does red end and blue begin? Each letter is transitional.

Second, I don't buy into the idea that chance accounts for the organization of complex organisms, especially when things containing less complex organization (houses, chairs, microphones) could never happen by chance. Biochemists look at living cells as machines with billions of interactive parts which I do not believe, nor does the science show, could ever happen by chance. I read a study by Dr. James Coppedge, an expert of stat probability who said that the chance of forming even a single protein molecule from random processes, in even 100 million years, is a 1 in 10 to the 161th power probability. I just can't buy into that. I think that stretches credulity.

Ah, so again you dont understand the processes. Evolution is not chance, and is quite easy to understand. Evolution is not chance, it is adapting through generations for greater chances of survival. This is done by passing of genes by surviving and mating. In order to study biology, you should read studies by peer reviewed biologists.

Third, the whole ape-men idea I find to be a fraud. Evolutionary theory, when drawn to its conclusion, would result in scientists finding significant fossils that link "ape like humans" to modern man. But there haven't been many significant examples of that and most have been found to be frauds. (Nebraska Man- determined to be a Pig's tooth, Java Man- determined to be a pre-human by scientists, Piltdown Man- determined to be a deliberate fraud, Peking Man- determined to be a monkey, Lucy- determined to be an ape.)

Read the 1st portion of my post again. Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program should also be helpful.

Lastly, I think empirical science and reason undergirds the creation model for origins, and undermine evolution. The law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay, which evolution violates. Not to mention the evolutionary form is at its core a theory of spontaneous generation which claims that living matter comes from non-organic matter, which I think science disproves. Also, leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record suddenly and are not gradually led up. This is exactly what creation posits.

No thats NOT what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. You have bad science and flat out lies. I suggest further research. The 2nd law of thermodynamics supports current models of existence and undermines creation myths.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So for those reasons I reject evolution. I have done extensive study on the subject but if you feel that I missed something or misrepresented the evolutionary model in any way, I am open to discussion.

In conclusion, you really ought forget all the creation scientists youve been listening to because theyve filled your head with nonsense. Read actual peer reviewed biologists to understand what the actual theory is and the available evidence. Right now you have literally all the wrong information.

And DOS is Doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[jsmiller]

Ah, in other words you dont understand evolution. EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. This can be shown through color.

Where in that photo does red end and blue begin? Each letter is transitional.

You believe that every fossil is a transitional fossil but what I'm saying is that which you believe to be a transitional fossil is simply a different species altogether. So a bird is always a bird and a reptile is always a reptile. In your example, where the red is a reptile and the blue is a bird, all of the purple in the fossil record is missing. Yes, I understand you posit that this happens over a long period of time, which is all the more concerning to me because the intermediate fossils showing differences are scant. We see in the fossil record species suddenly appearing, showing little to no change during their existence, and then disappearing from the record. Yes, we see species that closely resemble each other but after testing have rightly determined that the species thought to be transitional are different altogether (See Lucy).

Ah, so again you dont understand the processes. Evolution is not chance, and is quite easy to understand. Evolution is not chance, it is adapting through generations for greater chances of survival. This is done by passing of genes by surviving and mating. In order to study biology, you should read studies by peer reviewed biologists.

I never said that micro-evolution/ adaptation doesn't occur. The chance I was refering to is the undirected process of the organization of complex organisms. In other words, random chance didn't/ couldn't create the primordial slime that you assume we evolved from.

Read the 1st portion of my post again. Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program should also be helpful.

I've read through the evolutionary model countless times.. Still don't buy it

No thats NOT what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. You have bad science and flat out lies. I suggest further research. The 2nd law of thermodynamics supports current models of existence and undermines creation myths.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
You say that's not what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says and point me to the Wikipedia page.. Why not show me where you disagree? Telling me to do more research is a cop-out..

2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy, which is a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in an isolated system. Now my question to you is what organized the matter on earth before cellular molecular machines? The answer is NOTHING. Crystals would be the only thing close to answer but they formed energetically downhill. There is no example of an energetically unfavorable organism generating spontaneously. The heightened level of organization in a complex cell developing requires a MACHINE along with energy to catalyze it. The second law of thermodynamics, which you assume I know nothing about, says that it is impossible.

In conclusion, you really ought forget all the creation scientists youve been listening to because theyve filled your head with nonsense. Read actual peer reviewed biologists to understand what the actual theory is and the available evidence. Right now you have literally all the wrong information.

I haven't been listening to creation scientists but even if I had, should their theories not be considered? Or because they don't adhere to the full evolutionist paradigm they should just be thrown out? I have read peer reviewed biologists which is where most of my knowledge on evolution comes from. No one has a full understanding of the intricacies of this universe. I follow science just like you and make my own mind up about the good theories and the not so good ones. All we have are bits and pieces and we're on this learning bus together. But to throw creation out as a mere fairy tale and blindly accept the idea that something comes from nothing is no better.

And DOS is Doctrine of Original Sin.

Thank you
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As not to derail this topic to evolution, we can continue our discussion about literal interpretation of the Bible. I'd be more than happy to discuss evolution in another thread.

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

Evolution is yet another JEW LIE from Caucoholics Anonymous. I interpret the holy SCROLLS as prophecies about Native American MOORISH Hebrews.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Allow me to introduce you to the platypus... a duckbilled mammal that lays eggs and lives partly in water

Platypus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your lack of knowledge of the fossil record and rejection of it is alarming. You are being willfully ignorant. What you are showing is that you have an attachment to your belief system that you intend on shoehorning into reality instead of letting the evidence lead you where it may. The information is out there if you are willing to look. And if you can manage to peel yourself away from the myths that you have been ambushed with since before you were able to think critically. Funny how you can willfully reject a very real fossil record, but yet accept a loony flood story and theory about mating goats in front of striped sticks... amazing.

 

[jsmiller]

Allow me to introduce you to the platypus... a duckbilled mammal that lays eggs and lives partly in water

Platypus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your lack of knowledge of the fossil record and rejection of it is alarming. You are being willfully ignorant. What you are showing is that you have an attachment to your belief system that you intend on shoehorning into reality instead of letting the evidence lead you where it may. The information is out there if you are willing to look. And if you can manage to peel yourself away from the myths that you have been ambushed with since before you were able to think critically. Funny how you can willfully reject a very real fossil record, but yet accept a loony flood story and theory about mating goats in front of striped sticks... amazing.

Further personal attacks about my "lack of understanding" of the fossil record but yet you fail to explain anything.. I could say that you have no understanding about the fossil record based on your responses but instead I engage in conversation so that we can get to the core of the issues. Again, I've looked through a big part of the evolutionary theory and spent months on end studying the fossil record and it is incomplete with no intermediate forms. Period. Fossils that many evolutionists feel are transitional are entirely different species altogether. Period.

Not seeing how a platypus singlehandedly proves the evolutionary theory.. Again, you are positing that the platypus is a result of an entirely different species evolving into the modern day platypus. Whereas I see the platypus as its own unique species with a mosaic of parts. You're just using genetic similarity and dissimilarity to prove ancestry.

"Loony flood story and a theory about mating goats." Why not discuss the merits or (lack thereof) of the stories instead of chalking them up to being myth? Easy mechanism of copping out

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

jsmiller is a fukking idiot. I could debate this tool half awake.

I'm ashamed to think this person is probably an adult with responsibilities.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Further personal attacks about my "lack of understanding" of the fossil record but yet you fail to explain anything.. I could say that you have no understanding about the fossil record based on your responses but instead I engage in conversation so that we can get to the core of the issues. Again, I've looked through a big part of the evolutionary theory and spent months on end studying the fossil record and it is incomplete with no intermediate forms. Period. Fossils that many evolutionists feel are transitional are entirely different species altogether. Period.

Not seeing how a platypus singlehandedly proves the evolutionary theory.. Again, you are positing that the platypus is a result of an entirely different species evolving into the modern day platypus. Whereas I see the platypus as its own unique species with a mosaic of parts. You're just using genetic similarity and dissimilarity to prove ancestry.

"Loony flood story and a theory about mating goats." Why not discuss the merits or (lack thereof) of the stories instead of chalking them up to being myth? Easy mechanism of copping out

Evolution isn't solely based on physical observations of "transition"...you're not going to see things that live a long time DURING their evolution. thats why we study things with short life spans and confirm their evolution. Everything from fruit files, and pea plants to butterflies and finches.

Even still without the physical observations, Ribosomal RNA has confirmed evolution to an OVERWHELMING degree.

I'd love for you to say that paternity testing is bullshyt too. Its practically the same thing.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I'm sorry, I don't know what DOS stands for.

I reject evolution for 4 primary reasons.

First, I think the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. With all of the millions of fossils found, there is not one single fossil that shows a verifiable transition from one species to another. Alot of Darwin's theory posits the supposed evolution of fish becoming reptiles, then becoming birds, and apes becoming humans. And I think we can agree that in this age of scientific enlightenment it is common knowledge that these transitions do not exist.

Second, I don't buy into the idea that chance accounts for the organization of complex organisms, especially when things containing less complex organization (houses, chairs, microphones) could never happen by chance. Biochemists look at living cells as machines with billions of interactive parts which I do not believe, nor does the science show, could ever happen by chance. I read a study by Dr. James Coppedge, an expert of stat probability who said that the chance of forming even a single protein molecule from random processes, in even 100 million years, is a 1 in 10 to the 161th power probability. I just can't buy into that. I think that stretches credulity.

Third, the whole ape-men idea I find to be a fraud. Evolutionary theory, when drawn to its conclusion, would result in scientists finding significant fossils that link "ape like humans" to modern man. But there haven't been many significant examples of that and most have been found to be frauds. (Nebraska Man- determined to be a Pig's tooth, Java Man- determined to be a pre-human by scientists, Piltdown Man- determined to be a deliberate fraud, Peking Man- determined to be a monkey, Lucy- determined to be an ape.)

Lastly, I think empirical science and reason undergirds the creation model for origins, and undermine evolution. The law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay, which evolution violates. Not to mention the evolutionary form is at its core a theory of spontaneous generation which claims that living matter comes from non-organic matter, which I think science disproves. Also, leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record suddenly and are not gradually led up. This is exactly what creation posits.

So for those reasons I reject evolution. I have done extensive study on the subject but if you feel that I missed something or misrepresented the evolutionary model in any way, I am open to discussion.

You do not reject evolution, you simply do not understand evolution.

Everything you said was like a bullet point list of illogical, misinformed creationist talking points that are easily refuted and have been by myself and others on this board and sohh a hundred times over.

 

[jsmiller]

jsmiller is a fukking idiot. I could debate this tool half awake.

I'm ashamed to think this person is probably an adult with responsibilities.

So I'm an idiot for having a civil discussion? It's not a win/ loss thing to me, not trying to change any minds.. Just having a discussion.

 

[jsmiller]

Evolution isn't solely based on physical observations of "transition"...you're not going to see things that live a long time DURING their evolution. thats why we study things with short life spans and confirm their evolution. Everything from fruit files, and pea plants to butterflies and finches.

Even still without the physical observations, Ribosomal RNA has confirmed evolution to an OVERWHELMING degree.

I'd love for you to say that paternity testing is bullshyt too. Its practically the same thing.

RNA hasn't confirmed anything. RNA doesn't replicate itself which is a necessity for a living cell. RNA doesn't have the info carrying ability of DNA so the idea that the very first cell relied on RNA for both the carrying and replication would be a fallacy. RNA's enzyme properties are not versatile enough for a simple cell, nevertheless a complex one so I don't see how it overwhelmingly confirms evolution.

But instead of addressing my point, I'm sure I'll just hear that I'm an idiot. Good way to have a discussion.. Remember, I was asked why I didn't believe in evolution, I didn't drive the conversation there.

 

[jsmiller]

You do not reject evolution, you simply do not understand evolution.

Everything you said was like a bullet point list of illogical, misinformed creationist talking points that are easily refuted and have been by myself and others on this board and sohh a hundred times over.

Please point me to some links that refute them or if you have the time to refute them please feel free. Appreciate it

 

[intilectual recipricol]

I understand what your saying which is why I'm more cultural muslim rather than all out practicing muslim, i struggle with some of the same things. Having said that, if you don't think humans are too limited to understand our own societies I don't what to tell you. Race, class, most humans only understand things from our limited perspective and experiences.

I commend you in your struggle. Might I offer to you regardless of what holy books say, your struggle doesnt mean there is something wrong with you, your struggle is because those books dont vibe with the REALITY you know to be true and its hard to reconcile. You have to decide whether you will side with reality or a book written before people had even developed the scientific method. A book from a time when people believed in magic; do you see any magic today? It may be a struggle to come to terms with reality, but it is damn liberating.

As for understanding our society, I think we have a pretty strong grasp of understanding our societies. What dont you understand?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

RNA hasn't confirmed anything. RNA doesn't replicate itself which is a necessity for a living cell.

RNA has confirmed everything dumbass.

DNA doesn't ITSELF replicate either, but I don't see you using that against your argument.

RIBOSOMAL RNA is a viable use of determining lineage of species by studying the amount of variation between species. It explains everything from structural differences in physical appearance to susceptibility of disease.

You're really showing how little you know here.

RNA doesn't have the info carrying ability of DNA so the idea that the very first cell relied on RNA for both the carrying and replication would be a fallacy.

Self replicating RNA does exist. I guess viruses don't exist either.

Anyways, RNA DOES have info carrying ability. How the fukk do you think Translation and Transcription work?

Like I said. You haven't passed BIO 101. meanwhile I'm about to get this MD right quick.

RNA's enzyme properties are not versatile enough for a simple cell, nevertheless a complex one so I don't see how it overwhelmingly confirms evolution.

What does this ridiculous ass sentence mean? You can't understand how it works therefore its too complex?

Sit your dumbass down.

But instead of addressing my point, I'm sure I'll just hear that I'm an idiot. Good way to have a discussion.. Remember, I was asked why I didn't believe in evolution, I didn't drive the conversation there

I don't know why you don't believe in evolution. I hope you don't get flu shots, eat bananas, or other types of cultured food/fruits.

And yes, you argue like an idiot.

You're literally too arrogant and too stupid to know what you don't know.

Thats the problem here.

I have degrees in this and you're sitting here telling me that I don't understand this.