Redstate

When one says they don't involve herself in "organized religion" I wonder what is the alternative.

Is it disorganized religion -- as in a religion I invented for myself?

If this is the case, I don't see how disorganized religion is an intellectually stronger position. If disorganized religion isn't the alternative, why put the word "organized" before religion and just say you don't involve yourself with religion.

GOP Schism

Faith: belief in that which cannot be proved or disproved

Religion: behavior that aligns with my faith

Organized religion: behavior that aligns with my faith, as determined by a centralized organization whose existence depends on gifts from the faithful...or from whoever has an agenda to push.

For example, I happen to believe very strongly that the modern church more closely follows the teachings of Paul than of Jesus. Some people don't see a problem with that, since Jesus was the central figure in Paul's teachings. I just have a hard time with churches who focus solely on Paul, but ignore Peter, who, if I'm not mistaken, Jesus explicitly stated he would build his church upon. The difference is, Peter's teachings were more aligned with Jesus' (preaching love and faith), while Paul's letters were more concerned with the structure and organization of the church body. To me, an organization that focuses on how they should have control over an individual's life rather than on how that individual should live their own life according to Jesus is indicative of what is important to that organization, namely its own power.

As you can probably tell, I agree with the GP's contempt for organized religion.

"For example, I happen to believe very strongly that the modern church more closely follows the teachings of Paul than of Jesus."

should read:

For example, I happen to believe very strongly that the modern church more closely follows the teachings of Paul than of Peter.

...Freudian slip, perhaps?

"To me, an organization that focuses on how they should have control over an individual's life rather than on how that individual should live their own life according to Jesus is indicative of what is important to that organization, namely its own power."

One might note that this is, charitably speaking, not a fair description of the motivation of a particular Church's action.

It creates an unfair destinction. The act of counseling the faithful on what is and isn't sinful (sin, among other things, is a diviation from God's will -- which includes God the Son). This would seem to be a perfectly reasonable action by any Church.

The world is substantively different than it was in 100 AD. Guidance on what is and isn't sinful is an act of pastoral charity on the part of a Church -- in this case the Catholic Church. It's an attempt to prevent the faithful and society from falling into sinful behavior.

While abortion existed in Christ's time and early Christian writings detail as much (see Didache ca. 70 AD), other modern quandries didn't exist such as human cloning, embyronic stem cell research, the ability to destroy the ecosystem by willful industrial malfeasance, etc.

All the above activities are themselves wrong (or one might say it is not perspecuitive from the scriptures whether or not they're wrong). Whether one agrees or disagrees, the Catholic Church steps in and provides guidance to what is and isn't sin in specific cases from time to time so the faithful are not in total agnosticism on what is and isn't wrong.

The Catholic Church makes the additional argument that this is entirely following what Christ commanded it to do. One may disagree with whether the Catholic Church has this authority or doesn't. That's fine. But accusing a Church of being focused on "its own power" in this particular instance is misguided and is an appeal to a common strawman argument.

GOP Schism

Would economic conservatives be ok with a socially conservaitve socialist as the GOP nominee?

Over the course of history, the Church has told the people:

1) Drinking alcohol is a sin
1b) No, Regular drinking of alcohol (without reaching inebriation) is a sin.
1c) Alcohol is fine, but drinking to inebriation is a sin.

2) Smoking is a sin.
2b) Smoking cigarettes is ok, but smoking marijuana is a sin (separate from the legality of it).
2c) Smoking is not a sin, but don't let others see you do it, as it sets a bad example, and that IS a sin.
2d) Hiding your smoking means you feel guilty about it because you know it is a sin.

3) Women wearing pants is a sin.
3b) Pants are ok, just not on Sunday.
3c) Pants are fine for women, as long as they are decent.
3d) Saturday night service - casual attire welcome!

4) A man in love with another man is a sin
4b) A woman in love with another woman is a sin
4c) A white woman in love with a black man is a sin
4d) No, we take that one back, it's cool

5) A man in love with a 14 year old is NOT a sin.
5b) No, wait, now it is.

6) It is a sin to say the Earth orbits the sun.
6b) Oops, our bad.

7) Gambling is a sin.
7b) Bingo night tonight!

You'll forgive me if I don't look to the Church for guidance regarding what is or is not a sin. The church's guidance on sin has always been a reflection of the morality of the era, and as such is ever changing. I defy you to name me one modern religious movement that has NOT modified their principles over the years as either science or society have changed mankind's understanding of their world.

As far as being "focused on its own power", I was talking not about these new Catholic sins, but about churches picking from the letters of Paul to point out to church members how they should let the church be the decision makers in their lives. They run the gamut from issues like who should make financial decisions in the home (the man, regardless of intelligence or education) to whether parents should send their children to public school. I have actually seen churches (and I'm sure you've read about them) who require their members to get the church leadership's approval before any medical procedures for themselves or their children.

People like to say WWJD, but do they really want to know? Given evidence in Luke 19:45-46, I have a pretty good idea exactly WJWD if he walked into the modern church and saw them hawking the latest Christian book at 300% markup for the next six-week series on how God wants you to be successful by giving your money to the church.

Your definition of "Church" is relevant to this discussion since it appears like you go back and forth between Catholic Church and churches in general.

Your argument is a non sequitor. Your original point was that increaing power was the reason churches teach the faithful that specific acts are sinful. I think you see that you've made a hasty point and have tried to make up with it by shifting the argument to "the Church teaches poorly or falsely."

You seem offended by the statement that the religion of your imagination is not a defensible position and have chosen to side step it by a tenuous argument that the Church or Catholic Church (you go back and forth between your usages) have taught error.

The fact remains Christ founded an "organized religion." He "organized" it around Peter and the apostles. Christ said the kingdom of God was at hand -- not the democracy of God nor the anarchic state of God.

It's not enough to say that one religion is wrong to defend an indefensible position.

Now back to your litany of errors. Let's start by saying your list belies either a major lack of nuance or intentional dishonesty.

If your litany were applied to the Catholic Church, here are some quick thoughts:

1. The CC has never taught that drinking per se is a sin.
2. The CC has never taught that smoking tobacco per se is a sin. Taking mind altering substances for a recreational reason is a sin because it thwarts our free will.
3. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to say that women must pray with their heads covered. The church -- both Protestant and Catholic -- recognizes that this was a time and place specific directive unique to the first and second centuries AD, not a universally binding doctrine. As the social norms changed, so did this concept. This applies to a host of disciplinary concepts. This forum is not the place to cut and splice between these concepts. Suffice it to say though, women wearing pants has never been universally taught as a sin.
4. The CC hasn't altered this.
5. I think you understand this particular example is wildly dishonest and confuses a host of time and place specific norms for universally binding concepts.
6. If you'd like to understand what actually happened with heliocentrism and Galileo you might check this out: http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp In short, the Church commended Copernicus' heliocentrism years before Galileo. The reality was that Galileo made certain theological claims about his (error prone) heliocentrism.
7. I'm unaware of gambling ever being called a sin.

Ultimately I think you've displayed an amazing amount of intellectual sloth in your argument by kicking out a bunch of popularly informed fallacies that continue to exist. Perhaps one day you will actually have an interest in understanding the many concepts that you clearly either misunderstand or intentionally distort.

GOP Schism

My points were not directed at the Catholic church, but I can understand the confusion since I did not specify. Actually, I can respect the Catholic church's overall continuity throughout the ages. I think you'll find that most of my points above were based on the variations of the Protestant churches in the United States which I have attended.

As to your point:

Your original point was that increaing[sic] power was the reason churches teach the faithful that specific acts are sinful.

I never made this statement. You inferred it from the previous poster. My statement was that increasing their power was the reason that churches teach the faithful, not which acts are sinful, but to whose authority they should cede (see my points about Paul and the organization of the church vs. Peter.)

You then changed the argument from the religious body's (I don't use "church" so you don't think I'm singling out Catholicism) authority, to their task of instructing the members what is and is not sin. I never stated that this instruction was meant to increase the power of the organization. However, I did change paths from my original point because I feel very strongly about the organization telling their members what is and is not sin, based on the leader's personal belief, instead of on scripture.

I'm not going to argue most of those points, as you were defending the Catholic church's stance, and I was using examples from various Protestant and Catholic organizations. However, I will point out that your defense of #5 is exactly the point that I was making. "...is wildly dishonest and confuses a host of time and place specific norms..." is exactly the point I was making. The Church (and here I am specifying the Catholic church, as well as other organized religions of the time) had no problem with 15 year olds marrying. You cannot argue that "God's laws are unchanging" and that there were "time and place specific norms" that allowed a behavior that is now considered a sin. They are opposing points.

You can be as condescending and pseudo-intellectual as you want. That does not change the underlying points of my argument.

- Man is fallible, God is not. Therefore, any attempt at "tweaking" the laws of God to categorize certain activities as sins are going to be just as flawed. The Catholic church has, for the most part, not fallen into this trap, and have remained true to their long-standing traditions. That is why I was surprised at their "pollution is a sin" stance. It sounds too much to me like a Southern Baptist preacher saying "women wearing pants is a sin".

- The "religion of [my] imagination" is no less defensible than a religion of 500, or a religion of 500 million. Each is based on an individual interpretation of God's Word. Do sheer numbers increase the "accuracy" of a religion? If I choose to live my life according to my interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, not according to the interpretations of a man in Rome, how is that less of a religion?

"You cannot argue that 'God's laws are unchanging' and that there were 'time and place specific norms' that allowed a behavior that is now considered a sin. They are opposing points."

This is demonstrably false, and the point fails to recognize what the law of non-contradiction is. A person can be both fat and skinny at the same time. I can be fat when compared to a marathon runner from Kenya and skinny when compared to a sumo wrestler. This does not violate the law on noncontradiction.

It is the word of God that demonstrates that God alters His law -- for example when He established through Paul certain time and place specific norms such as head coverings for women, kosher foods, etc. Ignoring these scriptural points does not mean you've answered them. Certain time and place specific acts were sinful because of the concept of disciplinary obedience -- which did change from time-to-time in scripture. You are simply confusing unchanging doctrines, such as the trinity, for scriptural and church discipline.

Is it possible that a 14 year old in 200 AD is really and truly an adult in that age, while a 14 year old in the 21st century is vastly different from a maturity perspective in the year 2008? Is it also possible that these differences necessitate treating that person differently and not the same over the course of two millenia?

So, again, I just don't see how this violates the idea that Truth is unchanging. All of this also demonstrates a need for an entity larger than you for sorting out such confusion.

GOP Schism

but pointless discussion. You recognize a human being living on earth today as a emissary (or whatever word you use) directly from God, whose proclamations are as "truthful" as any scripture in the Bible. I do not recognize any living human as greater than or even equal to the Word of God, written down in the New Testament. We are not going to agree on the validity or strength of any rule or recommendation from a religious organization.

Let me ask you a question. If the church came out against something you believed in very deeply, what would be your response? (e.g. I don't know the Church's stance on euthanasia, but suppose your wife was legally brain dead and had previously asked you to not keep her on life support, but the Church says you have to) Would you:

a) Obey the church without question
b) Question the priest to gain a better understanding, but still obey the law
c) Question the priest to gain a better understanding, and if you were not satisfied with the explanation, disobey the law
d) Disobey the law
e) [Fill in the blank]

I think where you and I differ, and, to get back on topic, where "organized religion" differs from a "relation" with God, is that for me, "c" and "d" are valid options and "a" is off the table. Would you say the same?

We don't believe the pope is "directly from God." He's no prophet and he is not an apostle. He's a man like all other men. However, in his role as Bishop of Rome he is protected in a special way from teaching error in doctrine to the Church. Most non-Catholics don't know that the vast majority of papal statements don't come under this protection. Moreover, many papal statements that do pertain to doctrine fall under the purview of prudential judgment -- meaning they are not intended as infallible statements but as a basic theological principle that will vary based on specific data which is unavailable or differs greatly in unique situations.

Moreover, Catholics don't view the Pope or more broadly the magisterium (the Church's authoritative teaching power made up of the world wide body of bishops when teaching in unity) as scripture's master. The Church is the defender of scripture and protects it from misformulations of doctrine. As Peter says: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." – 2 Peter 1:20. Scripture also claims that it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Without this interpretive authority, there is simply theological anarchy -- also known as the Protestant doctrine of scripture alone.

Of course, I will agree that on this we will not find common ground.

Your question about difficult teachings of the Church is relevant on a number of counts. Let's take two that effect me:

1. Contraception -- it would be significantly easier for my wife and I to ignore the Catholic Church's prohibition on contraception. Abstaining from sex during specific fertile periods is not the easiest thing.

2. Divorce and remarriage -- my wife's father married a divorced Christian and did not attend the wedding because she did not want to offer support to a behavior that is contrary to scripture and the Church's teaching. This is not the easiest thing to deal with as a son-in-law or as a daughter.

Neither of these are easy things to accept and follow. After much study on both subjects, I have come to understand both teachings. But in the end, even if I'm not able to understand, I'm still asked to be faithful.

In John's gospel, Christ preaches that he is the bread of life and that unless one eats (the actual word is gnaws) his flesh he will not have eternal life. John's gospel records that many leave him forever that day. Those who leave say, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60).

Christ turns and asks the apostles if they too will leave. Peter answers not by saying that he understands or that he can cognitively accept the teaching. Peter throws up his hands and recognizes that he doesn't understand, yet he says "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

We are asked to accept things that are not easy and that we often don't understand.

GOP Schism

A political blog is not the place to engage in a heavy theological discussion. Suffice it to say that there are centuries of Catholic theology and philosophy behind these teachings. For those who are familiar with that background, these are actually much clearer than you may think.

www.republicansenate.org

The Catholics already stubbed their toe years ago when they tried to compete with science (Heliocentrism). They're not about to make that same mistake twice. However, they do not have to accept evolution's role in biogenesis, as this is ultimately unprovable (i.e. you can use scientific experiment to prove evolution because you can see the results of such experimentation. You cannot use science to prove biogenesis, as you are trying to work backwards to prove what HAS happened.)

Your moral indignation regarding sin is quite humorous, considering the history of religion. It is ridiculously egotistical to assume that we are at the point in human history when all of our current understanding, both scientific and religious, is correct when every other generation also believed the same thing, and were all later understood to be mistaken.

Why not just recognize what Jesus was trying to teach you, and hang up the dogma. I'm sure God is no more going to condemn you to hell for believing in evolution than he would for looking at a woman's ankles, chucking a Coke can out the car window, or enjoying a nice pulled pork sandwich.

>> Evolution IS acceptable <<

YOUR opinion. I disagree.

>> The Catholics already stubbed their toe years ago when they tried to compete with science (Heliocentrism). They're not about to make that same mistake twice. <<

Completely different matter.

>> Your moral indignation regarding sin is quite humorous, considering the history of religion. <<

You're confusing God's dictates with how we interpret them.

>> and religious <<

God does not change . . . He will not change yesterday, today, or tomorrow.

Unlike science, which is since we are not all-knowing constantly open to debate.

>> Why not just recognize what Jesus was trying to teach you, <<

What? Ya mean like this?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Matthew 5:17-18

>> and hang up the dogma <<

If I were you, I'd hang up on the Jesus Seminar.

>> than he would for looking at a woman's ankles <<

Please don't put words in my mouth.

"If we ever forget that we are One Nation under God, then we will be a Nation gone under." - Ronald Reagan

Since evolution is a FACT and an old earth and universe is a FACT, you are in a pretty tough position to defend. Since my God allows me to use my brain and my belifs defend the primacy of REASON, I and others like have much stronger empirical and factual arguments to make around these issues.

in happened a certain way so far back in time that we can't imagine. Are you psychic or just really old?

Don't give me that hogwash that macroevolution is proven unless you have seriously looked at all the science and alternatives. Molecule to man style evolution is not falsifiable under any given circumstances, which means that it can never be proven, just the same as creation or intellligent design.

considerably above the 8th grade level. In none have I found convincing proof of macroevolution. You either are easily led or overly trusting of "science" (I put it in quotes because I love real science. This is not - it is nothing more than an educated guess).

scientific fact. If the Bible didn't say that the world was 6000 years old or that Eve was made from Adam's rib, you would laugh at it because it is absolutely in opposition to reason and fact.

for all I know, but if you haven't, take a good look at evolutionary biology textbooks (especially high-level ones, the grade school and high school books are jokes quite often). See if you can find a lot of "reason and facts" in them. I have done so, and you find an awful lot of guesses - phrases like "we can assume" or "must have occurred", etc. are everywhere. Sure inspires confidence in me.

I also believe the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago in the span of six 24-hour solar days (as we know them).

I simply believe the earth was created "at a moment in time", just as Adam was created as a man and not an infant. Everything was created in an "adult state".

With this view I can clearly accept microevolution and reject macroevolution. I can also accept all scientific dating methods without affecting in any way my view of creation.

You may not agree with it, but there are no scientific issues with the model.

FDT's Principles

It stands to reason that you also accept a Biblical world-wide flood, some 4000 years ago, as fact.

Now 4000 years ago, Pyramids were being built in Egypt and the Chinese were 1,000 years into their epic history. But the Bible says that was impossible because these civilizations arose afterwards.

Which begs the question, how long did it take for different human "racial" features to appear? And how long before humans re-inhabited the globe?

And then we have the birth and migration patterns of wildlife on a barren but soaked Earth. Starting from Mount Ararat, how long would it have taken to Koala bear, the Kangaroo, and the Platypus to reach Australia? What of New Zealand's Kiwi or Sloths of South/Central America?

And if Noah only brought one pair of bears, how long did it take for them to "micro-evolve" into known bear species: Polar, Brown, Black, Panda, Sloth, Sun, etc.?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

FDT's Principles

Okay, then correct me on the flood. I'll accept whatever date you choose as long as it's with your 6,000 year history. (Answers in Genesis claims the date is 2304 BC +/- 11 years.) Based on your date of the flood, please explain how so much happened so very, very quickly.

For example, the sloth has a metabolism so slow that they spend most of the day asleep. They're capable of speeds up to "15 feet per minute, but they burn large amounts of energy doing so." and the large, curved claws on their hands and feet make them poorly suited for moving around in anything other than trees.

So how did a couple of sloths on Mount Ararat become six species of tree-dwelling, jungle inhabitants of Central and South America in a span of 4300 years or so?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

when you say Noah only brought one pair of each species on the Ark.

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

I know I went to public school, but simple math tells me it's four or fourteen of every kind.

This is as far as I'm willing to take this. This is a political site, not a religious one.

FDT's Principles

Four, fourteen, it doesn't really matter. How did such a small group of sloths travel from Mount Ararat to the jungles of South and Central America, and diversify into six species, in 4300 years?

They move very slowly as well, an average of 0.5 to 0.6 kilometers an hour (about one-third of mile per hour) when traveling in the trees.

On the ground, their movements are awkward and even slower, just 250 meters, or a little over 800 feet, per hour. But they descend to the ground only to change trees, which they do infrequently, and to simultaneously urinate and defecate at the base of the tree.

On the ground, sloths are at high risk of predation, easy targets of such predators as coatis, jaguars, margays, ocelots, and anacondas.

Adding to the ordeal - no trees when they disembarked. And I'm sure their predators were hungry as they also traveled to the Americas.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Actually the way Sloths get around is by waiting for floods. When a flood comes they just float where they want to go.

They may just have fallen off the ark.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Okay, so we have a group of four or fourteen sloths on Mount Ararat with no trees just after the greatest flood of Biblical history. What are they eating? Where are they living? What are their predators eating? When is the next flood? Which direction does it take them? How do they survive winter?

You have to admit, a global re-population of all living things in time for actual recorded history to mesh with the Biblical story is just not feasible.

You can't even honestly answer a simple thought-experiment about the sloths (never mind all of the other rare and exotic flora and fauna). Fourteen sloths holding onto a tree trunk that zips them from Asia to the Americas - I'd like to see you argue that with a straight face.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Lots of mammals can swim, but that doesn't mean they can survive several thousand miles of open sea.

Knowing that sloths sleep most of the day, how are they to survive a journey that would take months, if they're lucky? And the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean are not a placid stream (like the video), it's rough chop, swelling waves, storms and the occasional hurricane - oh, and sharks.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

So if they did the backstroke I see no difficulty.

Oops or didn't you know sloths have symbiotic algal colonies they derive sustenance from n/t
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

In the video, you clearly saw how slowly the sloth swims in calm waters - and it doesn't do the backstroke. And the algae that lives on Sloths provides camouflage not sustenance, so you must be thinking of the bacteria in its ruminating stomach. Essentially Sloths are tree cows, and because leaves are nutrient-poor, they have a very slow metabolism and the sleep most of the day.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

And you rule out their ability to do the backstroke ?
Well isn't that special.

The sloths feed off the insects that feed off the algae. What a magnificent ecosystem of an animal.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

1. You can determine if the backstroke is feasible simply by analyzing the skeleton and musculature of the Sloth's shoulder. (HINT: It can't)

2. Sloths have a multi-chambered stomach and have specialized bacteria (they're foregut fermenters) because the bulk of their diet comes from eating leaves.

3. "The mean energy expenditure for Bradypus has been estimated to be 95.5 kcal/day" (adult humans avg 1800-2400 kcal/day)

Q. How far can a sloth swim expending only 100 kcal/day and sleeping for 15 hours?
A. Not far enough to cross the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

Q. How does a sloth not drown while asleep?
A. ....

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

They weren't there when the flood started.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Are you suggesting the Sloths escaped the Flood and therefore were not on the Ark?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I honestly don't understand your latest argument. Unicorns and dragons? What is your point?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

evolved into the modern equivelent of tree cows?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If a literal Bible supports Sloths evolving from gills and flippers to noses and claws, then why do Creationists doubt Evolutionary theory?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

due to the second law of thermodynamics.

FDT's Principles

The Earth is not a closed system because the Sun constantly replenishes heat loss to space. There is no violation of the 2nd "law".

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Guess we'll throw out that Global Warming stuff then. Predictions are unreliable and unproveable in an open system.

FDT's Principles

You can do that if you want, but Science isn't limited by your level of understanding. I would suggest your read about the Carnot cycle and open systems.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

So long as it's your open system it works.

FDT's Principles

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

How does a global flood that extinguishes all life on land let an olive tree survive? Perhaps it grew from seed to tree in that brief window between subsiding waters and landfall. You have to admit, either way it is not a valid scientific explanation.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

according to the Genesis account the flood destroyed all "flesh" (people, animals etc.) It is perfectly acceptable within the account that many trees survived :P

A global flood sufficient to swallow the Himalayan mountains would add five miles of water on top of the current sea level.

From what I've learned, olive trees are not found more than 1 mile (1,500m) above sea level, thus the highest olive tree would have been under four miles of water. At that depth, there is no sunlight and water pressure is about 10,000 lbs per square inch.

In otherwords, olive trees would die - and just about everything else on land.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

The OT record may just as easily be taken as a flood of: "any part of the world where men resided" (which would be a fairly small footprint since it had not been all that long since creation. Thus the waters may not have been as deep as you imagine. In addition it is easy to posit that atmospheric or environmental conditions would have allowed the olive tree to grow in other location during the historical period. Finally, its quite possible that the leaf in question was only floating on the surface of the now receding waters and did indeed come from a previously destroyed tree.

But if you don't believe in a global flood then you don't believe in a literal Bible. If that's the case, then why not believe a 4.5 billion year old Earth?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

with a old earth view. The Bible can be interpreted "literally" to accept this idea. -- Regarding the global flood I still maintain that there is not specific language in Genesis that mandates that the flood narrative must be taken as global.

To some extent we get into semantics and interpretation here but in my view the Genesis account is compatible with what we know of science.

I have enjoyed the conversation however.

Peace

Sloths cannot walk upright but rather have to drag and pull themselves along with their claws and forearms. Sloths surprisingly are very good swimmers moving through the waterways or to navigate flood waters by using a "breast-stroke" type movement.

http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/two-toed-sloth.cfm
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Ah, so that must mean they are equally capable to navigate the waters of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Since dogs and bears can swim too, so I guess that's how they made it over as well.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

You decided to use an animal you didn't know much about.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Sloths can't swim the length of the Atlantic ocean, even with the assistance of the Gulf Stream.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

It was you who said...

"You may not agree with it, but there are no scientific issues with the model."

...well I do have scientific issues with the model, as I have shown in several examples.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

how old earth ideas in particular are entirely compatable with modern scientific knowledge.

Its just that it isn't proven like you say and I don't like being told that if I don't agree with them, I must be an anti-science flat earther.

There is incontrovertible evidence of macro and micro evolution. Just because all of the gaps aren't closed doesn't mean that it isn't so. What can be proven, with equivocation, is that the earth and the universe are very old. Dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before man appeared.

I will readily agree with you on adaptation. It happens and we see it. Not so with macro evolution. Not only are the gaps not closed, they are standing wide open. Find me an example of macro evolution that you can prove happened. Not one that can be explained by a torturous macroevolutionary argument, but one that we have actually seen.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --

It's not going to go away

Man-made Global Warming is a SHAM, a HOAX, a FRAUD, a conspiracy to DEFRAUD and BLACKMAIL the US into redistributing its wealth, while cutting our own wrists.

How is THAT for a comprehensive policy concerning global warming.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777