The wonders of God's creation - Example 1, the tsetse fly

by jambon1 319 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cantleave

  Building on Cofty's point, if the bible was inspired and if Jesus was involved in creation why couldn't some real science have been inserted? I have been told that the world wasn't ready. My retort is that prophecy was inserted that would be revealed in due time, why not the same with science?

  If the bible mentioned microscopic organisms, the structure of the universe, or gave some account gravity or atomic theory I would be impresssed. But it doesn't. It talks about man being made of dust, the Earth being created in days and being a circle with four corners.

  If Jesus cured epilepsy without talk of "demon possession" or mentioned surface tension when he walked on water, those accounts would be more credible.
• 

  ziddina

  Aaaaarrrgh...!!!

  People...

  Just read the first 19 verses of the first book of the bible. There are at least TWO glaring ERRORS in there, that ANYone with a modicum of knowledge of third-grade level astronomy would NEVER make...

  If the "gawd" of the bible didn't even get THAT right, then the bible "gawd" CANNOT be real, and any astronomers who claim to "believe" in that god, have not done their research into what the bible actually says...
• 

  sabastious

  Just read the first 19 verses of the first book of the bible. There are at least TWO glaring ERRORS in there, that ANYone with a modicum of knowledge of third-grade level astronomy would NEVER make...

  The Bible was written by humans. Human's have limited knowledge. You need to purge yourself of this idea that God speaks and words spontaneously form.

  -Sab
• 

  ziddina

  "The Bible was written by humans. Human's have limited knowledge. You need to purge yourself of this idea that God speaks and words spontaneously form. ..." Sab, above

  And I present yet another "Cafeteria Christian" - perhaps more like, "Cafeteria Theologist"; picking and choosing what he'll accept as "inspired"...
• 

  sabastious

  And I present yet another "Cafeteria Christian" - perhaps more like, "Cafeteria Theologist"; picking and choosing what he'll accept as "inspired"...

  You do realize that any developed method could be construed as "picking and choosing." I made a thread about what I consider to be inspired works. My official definition of Scripture is: any work that was officially agreed upon and archived for human prosperity orally or written. The reason for this is rooted in the science of the theory of functional specialization of the brain and drawing a parallel to wolf packs. Wolf packs are only a similar model, however not a perfect match. The pack instinct actually came from our sea ancestors which both wolf and human as mammals show evolved traces of.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  I understand the definition of every word in that last post but assembled in that particular order and it may as well have been written in Sanskrit.
• 

  ziddina

  "vacuous deepitys...."

  Cofty

  OOOOOOO, I like that expression, too!!!

  Combined with "Cafeteria Christians" or "Cafeteria Theists", that could make a fantastic statement...

  "This Cafeteria Theist is pontificating voluminously, with various vacuous deepitys employed throughout..." Zid

  Hee hee hee heee!!!
• 

  sabastious

  Hee hee hee heee!!!

  Annoyance can be masking jealousy.

  I understand the definition of every word in that last post but assembled in that particular order and it may as well have been written in Sanskrit.

  I found some information on deepitys:

  An Indo-Iranian *mantra is also preserved in Avestan manthra, effectively meaning "word" but with far-reaching implications: Manthras are inherently "true" (aša), and the proper recitation of them brings about (realizes) what is inherently true in them. It may then be said that manthras are both an expression of being and "right working" and the recitation of them is crucial to the maintenance of order and being. (See also: Avestan aša- and Vedic ?tá-).

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  Deepity is a term coined by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference. It refers to a statement that has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true.

  The example Dennett uses to illustrate a deepity is the phrase "love is just a word". On one level the statement is perfectly true (i.e., 'love' is a four letter word) but the deeper meaning of the phrase is false; love is many things - a feeling, an emotion, a condition and not simply a word.
• 

  sabastious

  The example Dennett uses to illustrate a deepity is the phrase "love is just a word". On one level the statement is perfectly true (i.e., 'love' is a four letter word) but the deeper meaning of the phrase is false; love is many things - a feeling, an emotion, a condition and not simply a word.

  Love is just a glyph would be a better term. Before symbols that represented ideas there was no easy way to describe incredibly complex concepts such as justice or love. While modern day words do have far reaching implications in the end they are all just cheap knock offs based off the real thing.

  -Sab