Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanPost by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanPost by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanPost by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanPost by Mitchell HolmanPost by AndrewPost by Bob OfficerPost by Ted&AlicePost by Andrewhttp://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1610/AntliaGalaxies_Olsen_3326.jpg
This spans about 2 million light years and lies about 130
million light years away away. The red ribbon on the left
may be a supernova remnant. This cluster has about 200
galactic members.
Thanks Andrew. Do you recall Carl Sagan's Cosmos series?
There are at least three other galactic cluster in this image. The red
ribbon is a SNR inside the milky way galaxy.
The SNR disproves the bible. The bible states
the stars are fixed and unending,
No.
Post by Bob Officerthe SNR must be created by a dying star.
I wonder why androol posts evidence like this?
There are some folks that appreciate beauty in
the Creation.
Post by Bob OfficerAlso the light from those galaxies are millions
of years old. More evidence his bible is wrong.
Not "evidence the bible is wrong".
If all creation happened 6000 years
ago why are we seeing light from objects
more than 6000 lightyears away?
Only YEC accept a 6000 year old earth. The majority of Christians
are not YEC. The 6000 year old creation is one mans opinion centuries
after the Bible was written.
It wasn't really an opinion, but rather a "calculation" based on
adding up the ages in the Biblical genealogies.
Post by R. DeanThe bible itself says nothing about
the time.
Why would you care, since you've said your ideas about Intelligent
Design were not based on any religious texts?
This thread is not about intelligent design.
Would you be willing to state for the record that you don't care if
the Bible is wrong or right about the age of the earth?
You seem to think I'm an atheist.
I think you've claimed to be a Deist, someone who wouldn't care about
the inerrancy of scripture.
Post by R. DeanI've _never_ made such a claim.
Nevertheless, it's a moot question. I care about accuracy and evidence.
The reason I dispute the 6000 year old it contradicts the empirical
Evidence of a 13.7+/- billion year old universe.
If the Bible says the universe is 6000 years old, then the Bible is
wrong.
And the Bible is wrong about a lot of things.
It is.
Post by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanIf you think this is a defense of the Bible then, perhaps it is.
And do you have some interest in defending the Bible?
Do I think the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God? No, I do
not. Nor do I know enough about the Bible to defend it.
Post by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanBut the 6000 year old universe is +not part of the Bible. It was
inserted into the cover many centuries after the Bible was written.
This is one of 2 views, I take issue with. The second
view is the notion that _all_ Christians accept this dating of the age
of the universe. Maybe fundamentalist Christians are YEC, but not all
Christians are YEC.
I wasn't claiming that.
I don't remember who, but someone did.
Post by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanAnother problem I have with Genesis, is the fact it's part of the
Old Covenant (Old Testament). A covenant, like a contract, once
fulfilled, is no longer in force. Christians say Christ met all the
requirements of the Old, and established a New Covenant for those
who accept him. Christians believe
But not you, right?
I've been a Deist since about my Jr. year at the university. But
within the past few months I've become increasingly more theistic
in my outlook, primarily because of my increasing conviction that
there is evidence of design in the universe and in life itself.
What "evidence" is that? Have you been reading creationist sources
that led you to arrive at your latest convictions?
Post by R. DeanI'm
not going to become involved with any organized religion, I don't
see the need.
Post by Vincent MaycockPost by R. Deanthey are under a New Covenant (New
Testament). Most Christians say they are members of a New Testament
Church.
This is religious, which I never bring up when discussing I.D.
And why don't you?
For what reason?
It's valuable knowledge to keep in mind when discussing these matters
with people; for example, your repudiation of the Bible here helps
distinguish you from some run-of-the-mill creationist, and calls for
different kinds of argument to be used against you.
He was an OEC, not a YEC.
And his imaginary intelligent designer is the god he used to insist
did it when he was an OEC - even though he is careful not to admit
it..
Come-on Chris, you know, I have always said, while I believe, there is
evidence of design and purpose,
There isn't, outside the deluded fantasies of OECs and their even more
dishonest siblings,, the IDiots.
I know your opinion. And you have a right to it.
Fact, liar - not just opinion.
You can see purpose and design in both the formation of
matter especially carbon,
Either prove this or stop lying.
Either prove this or stop lying.
Post by R. Deanin biology the appearance
of homeobox genes whicn is virtually ubiquious through
animal life so early in the history of life,
Have you forgotten how you were ripped a new one on talk.origins for
this?
It is just an ancient, highly conserved gene.
Post by R. Deannot to
mention the function or purpose of enzymes which could
be seen as evidence of purposeful design. Of course
Prove it or stop lying.
Post by R. Deanone may say evolution through random mutations and natural
selection (rmns) but this can also be seen as the result of
intelligent design.
For which there is still no evidence.
And you know why there isn't because there cannot be.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. Deanthere is no evidence pointing to the
identity of the designer.
The imaginary designer you and they plucked out of thin air.
Again that's your opinion.
No, liar. Because no matter how much you delude yourself, there is no
evidence for one.
Except by your denial, you have yet to shown there is no designer or
that design in nature is non existent.
Not my job, imbecile. You claim it, you demonstrate it.
Even though it has been explained over and over again why there is no
way to determine it.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeAnd this has been explained over and over again.
And you explanation is wrong.
Just because so mew loonie sez so, without explaining why?
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanIt isn't just me saying this, but others are
saying the same thing. I may have an opinion as to it's identity, but
that all it is - an opinion.
The "identity" of a figment of your deluded imagination.
No, I have no way to know the identity of the designer. Why is
this simple concept so difficult for you to grasp?
WHAT FRIKKING DESIGNER, question-begging moron?
Evasion noted!
Stop lying. There was no evasion.
You have to demonstrate this hypothetical design instead of asserting
it.
And you also have to show how explanations why it cannot be
determined, are wrong.
Instead of just asserting it.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeThe "reasons" he gives for being an ID-iot are standard ID dishonesty
that only convinces former YECs, and the only reason even to posit an
intelligent designer, is one's religious belief that a god did it.
That's not the case with me. My recent and increasing turn towards
theism is _because_ of what I've learned about what some scientist
call coincidences in the universe and its formation, as well as
what has been learned about life.
Liar.
Did you read what I wrote? It requited no response, since you are no
mind reader.
You lied about science and scientists.
Which makes you a liar.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeI don't need to be one, liar.
You do not know what I think unless you are a mind reader. And you've
shown over and over that you're no mind reader.
It's clear from what you say, liar.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeBecause he has had it explained over and over again that there is no
way to determine design....
You leave no room for disagreement.
Because there is none, apart from the deluded fantasies of YECs,. OECs
and their dishonest siblings, the IDiots.
That is the most arrogant statement you can make. It implies that
you know everything, therefore, therefore, any other view is wrong.
You set yourself up as a know-it-all.
And you pretend you don't lie, proven serial liar.
Unlike you, I have a real education and didn't learn pseudo-science
from creationists and IDiots.
You've shown no evidence of this higher level of education.
I'm not the liar who insists that the values of physical constants
implies the intention for there to be life. Or who lies that his
interpretation of the Anthropic Principle is scientific when it's
based on the theistic presumption of a creator.
Or who invents motives that aren't even there when scientists say that
there is only the appearance of design to laymen, and who go on to
explain why it only appears that way.
Post by R. DeanI pointed out innumerable times that I read scientist such as
Hawking, Dawkins, Rees, Davies for example not creationist.
And you lied about what they said and why they said it.
Post by R. DeanYou OTOH never read anything that conflicts with you atheist
mindset. Including the web sites I reference and cite.
What "atheist mindset", proven serial liar? There is none. I simply
live in the real world, not the theist's fantasy one.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanThe point is Chris, you are _not_
the final word on this subject.
I never sais I was, liar.
IOW I said you are _not_ the final word on this subject, by calling me
a liar, you are inadvertently claiming to be the final word on the subject.
I call you a liar for lying.
Post by R. DeanYou called me a liar. I said you're _not_ the final word on the subject,
And I never said I was, liar.
I just have the very education which you don't.
Post by R. Deanbut this makes me a liar? Which means you think you are the final word.
You cannot follow the logic of you own statements.
No, liar.
You lie when you impute motives that aren't there. You lie when you
misrepresent the various scientists after you have been repeatedly
corrected.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeYou resort yto personal lies as red herrings and ad hominems, rather
that address what has been explained here, in talk.origins and by the
scientists you misrepresent.
In spite of you incessant claims you've explained how and where I
misrepresent scientist, you have not. When I offer the cite,
Why can't you stop lying about this?
Post by R. Deanwhich you refuse to go to, you have no idea what was said by
the scientist. Except via you know-it-all mentality.
I don't need out-of context quotes which go against what anybody who
knows either the field or the scientist's work, goes against their
position.
Especially when you know perfectly well that in order to correct
common misconceptions, they describe these before showing why they are
wrong - and that you cite the misconceptions as if these were their
own position instead of where they refuted them.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanNo matter how many times you "explain"
it, you have not, so far, been convincing.
But you never say why, and you never address the following...
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeClaiming design is the same old problem he gas never understood - if
everything were designed, then there is nothing natural for
comparison, to determine it actually _was_ designed.
I have never claimed the _everything_ is designed and that nothing
is natural. Why would you suggest that? Caesar's head in Carolinae
is a natural formation created by wind and water. The Statue of Liberty
is designed.
At the "designer of the universe" level, you dishonest, weaseling
liar.
This was about distinguishing kinds of designs, the designer of the
universe was not specified by you. When you are cornered, you always
come out with these false charges and accusations as a diversion tactic.
Dishonest weaseling noted, because the universe is "everything".
Here we have the pot calling the kettle black. This was not germane
at the time - and you know it. Here I being the mind reader :/
Liar.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeAnd the only other way to determine design would be to demonstrate
this hypothetical designer _first_
For those of us who see design in nature, this _design_ is evidence
of a designer.
WHAT FRIKKING DESIGN, liar?
Well?
Purposeful design is every where,
Either prove this or stop lying, proven serial liar.
Post by R. Deanunless you are blinded by mindless
bigotry.
And you pretend you don't understand why you are called a liar, for
this kind of personally nasty lie.
I simply live in the real world, where the rules of the real world
apply.
Post by R. DeanThe homeobox genes has purpose and it has the necessary design
to serve the purpose it does.
Either prove this or stop lying about it.
Post by R. DeanThis is evidence of purpose and function,
You haven't demonstrated purpose and design, just asserted it.
Post by R. Deanthis evidence can be seen as evidence of rmns or intelligent design.
WHAT FUCKING "EVIDENCE"?
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanI suspect people who dispute the very idea of design
do so for this very reason - Design suggest a designer, therefore
design is anathema. Design cannot be accepted.
That was a personal lie about those who understand things better than
you do.
You are incapable of following simple logical concepts to their
conclusions.
Hardly, liar.
It was a personal lie about those who understand things better than
you do.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeWhich makes you the liar you say you aren't.
Your inability does not make me a liar. There is
no other reason
I never said it did, liar - your personal lies about those who see
through your transparent nonsense, make you a liar, liar.
Post by R. Deanever given as to why design is never seriously
entertained.
BECAUSE THERE IS NOI WAY TO CONCLUDE IT, imbecile.
Please try to keep up.
Post by R. DeanTo say there is no evidence, is blinded by bigotry. You can't
No, pathological liar, it's because there isn't any. You have made all
sorts of baseless assertions but never been able to back them up.
Post by R. Deansee design because you don't want to see design.
And you pretend that personal lies like this don't make you a liar?
I don't "see" design because I wasn't brainwashed into theism as a
child, and because nothing whatsoever points to it.
Post by R. DeanDesign implies
a designer.
But you haven't yet demonstrated design.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeThen you're lying to yourself, and repeating that lie to those who are
more intelligent and better educated.
Again rather than address my point you drag out the same old false
charges. I admit there are a few in these NGs with Phds and MDs
so, yes they are more educated than me, I question that you are
one.
What "false charges", liar?
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeWhat "false charges", liar?
This is an example. Backed into a corner, you always attack the
messenger.
No, liar. I call you a liar for imputing motives that aren't there -
not just for me and the other educated newsgroup regulars but also
the scientists you accuse of the same things.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeThis is an example of your misrepresentation of science and
scientists, which you lie that you don't do,
You've yet to demonstrate this. It requires more than you word.
Show me were I misrepresent anyone, not just by your word or
opinion of what they meant, but by demonstrating what they
actually said and how this conflicts with with what I quoted
or referenced.
Done over and over again, liar - and the most recent example is your
lie that they they didn't admit design because they didn't want to.
Not because there is no scientific evidence for it, which means there
is nothing to investigate.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeWas it some other liar, also calling himself "Ron Dean", who said
"people who dispute the very idea of design do so for this very reason
- Design suggest a designer, therefore design is anathema. Design
cannot be accepted"?
That was one of your more recent lies. Anybody with any understanding
of science or the scientists concerned, knows this is false.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeYou've had it explained here, and also on talk.origins as well as by
the authors of science books for the layman, why design cannot be
determined.
This goes to show exactly what I mean, you resort to the very
It can't be, imbecile.
You have asserted it. You have used mined, out-of context quotes in
the fallacy of bogus argument from authority, and you have used
non-sequiturs.
Post by R. Deanargument you so virulently deny. IE that design cannot be detected.
Because it can't be.
Post by R. DeanWhich is the point, recognition of design is anathema, because
Why can't you stop lying about this, proven serial liar?
Post by R. Deandesign implies a designer. Face it Chris, you as an atheist, has a
vested interest in the absence of design.
Why can't you stop these personal lies?
All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't any kind of theist and who
lives in the real world.
I have no such "vested interest" because atheism is a non-even - or
at least it would be if religious fanatics like you could only live
and let live.
If there actually were any evidence of design, it would have been
investigated and science would have gone down that route.
But there isn't, and it didn't - and not for the reasons you lied
about.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanYour idea of demonstrating a designer _FIRST_, places us in an
impossible catch 22 situation. You demand evidence of a designer without
evidence.
No, moron. We recognise that humans design things because of our
knowledge of humans.
But with your hypothetical "designer of the universe", you don't
already have that knowledge.
If we find something that appears to be designed on the moon or Mars, do
we automatically deny design because we would have no knowledge of the
designer.
Where did I say that, liar?
We would have things that are natural for comparison. We would not
start off with the assumption that it was designed,
But, once again, you are equivocating between the hypothetical
"designer of the universe" level of design and "ordinary" design.
Post by R. DeanWe have spent millions searching for radio signals from other
galaxies looking for data that is not random or too regular to be
intelligently coded. By your argument we've wasted vast amounts
of funds in the search.
No, liar.
And why don't you look up the rationale for CETI?
There are difficulties - but the wavelength being searched is an
obvious one that an alien culture might use if it wanted to
communicate, 21 cm, the wavelength of the hydrogen line.
But transmissions on this or any other wavelength would take
tremendous power at interstellar distances and also be highly
directional to avoid being lost in the star's electromagnetic
radiation - which creates a whole slew of problems.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeIt's not "my" catch-22, it's one of your own making.
No, it isn't. Since you refuse to acknowledge design, there
There's nothing to acknowledge, let alone refuse to acknowledge,
liar.
Post by R. Deanis nothing left to demonstrate a designer. It is a catch 22
situation, and you try to close the only door. If you
I do no such thing, liar.
It's one of two things. Either you don't read before you
respond or you are incapable to follow reasoning. My bet
in on the last option.
Project much?
Do you understand what is wrong with Paley's watch-on-the-beach
argument?
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. Deancannot have design you cannot have a designer and if you
cannot have a designer you cannot have a design. You
have locked the door to you mind.
There is simply no reason to assume one, liar - apart from the
pre-existing religious belief in one that you pretend you don't have.
Here we have another one of your stock accusations. When you are
cornered, with no where to go you always resort to accusations
personal insults and character assassination. It's you self-
serving device.
No, liar.
The only reason to posit a designer is because you already believe in
one.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanSuch a designer manifest itself only in its design.
WHAT FRIKKING DESIGN?
Post by R. DeanDesign is evidence of a designer.
WHAT FRIKKING DESIGN?
Well, moron?
Again I've answered this numerous times. Is your problem, just a short
memory, or the onslaught of Alzheimer disease?
My "problem" is a combination of education and a thinking mind.
Because none of your baseless assertions actually demonstrate design.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanThe only other option would be self manifestation which will not happen
if design evidence is unacceptable.
No, moron.. For the umpteenth time, the other way we determine design
is to have something natural for comparison.
Something natural and undesigned would be entropy in the universe.
As energy in the universe becomes increasingly unavailiable for work
over time as disorder increases. The ultimate and final condition of the
universe is heat death. As second example of natural and undesigned is
random mutations.
You're equivocating between the designer-of-the-universe level and
design at our level.
I offered two examples at two levels demonstrating undesigned
conditions: one at the univesasl level and a second at the
biological level. This in response to exactly what you were
bellyachingabout.
Where? You offered nothing that wasn't baseless assertion.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. Leeand show he knows enough about it
to know that it designed everything.
I don't claim that _everything_ is designed.
Just the universe.
And the universe is everything.
Please try to keep up.
As far as materialism is concerned.
Living in the world of reality, isn't an -ism.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeIf he knows a third way apart from argumentum ad ignorantiam, then
he should tell us - and defend it against criticism without
misrepresenting scientists, without the non-sequiturs he applied to
the SAP and the values of physical constants, and without his ad
hominems.
I've challenged you to prove your accusations against me for many
years.
Done over and over again.
Do you not understand what an unsubstantiated claim means?
You certainly imagine substantiated conclusions are unsubstantiated
claims when they refute the bullshit you post where it is off-topic..
Only if you change the topic as you did with the issue of design itself
and it's recognition. But you tried to change the subject not to just
design itself, but to design in the universe.
I did no such thing, liar.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanBut as you've learned, it's impossible to justify these charge of
misrepresenting scientist when I give references or exact quoted words,
with references or videos in scientists own words. So, all you are left
with is your charges and accusations which you level against me.
Done over and over again, liar.
This is just another unsupported claim.
Liar.
Your "references and videos" are misrepresentations, For example your
outright lie that scientists recognise design but can't admit it
because they are atheists.
This is sometimes the case. I recall the statement: "Biology is the
It is NEVER the case, pathological liar.
Even if a scientist happens to be theist, he steps aside from his
religious preconceptions when he does his science.
And no scientist, theist or atheist, has ever demonstrated design -
because that is a theistic preconception.
They all know that before they can assume it, they would have to
provide scientific evidence for it.
Post by R. Deanstudy of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose." - Dawkins
"Appearance of" does not mean"is", imbecile.
Post by R. DeanAnother scientist, stated "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that
what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Crick
And?
I suspect he would have been talking to high-school or undergraduate
students, not fellow scientists.
Post by R. DeanCrick confirms what Dawkins said.
But not what you imagine Dawkins meant.
In any case, you have removed these from whatever the original context
was, and put them into your own.
Post by R. DeanThe point is, the design observation must be overwhelming
- if not, there would be no justifiable reason for them to even broach
the subject.
Bullshit. They write for the layman to try and educate him - which
includes explaining why common misconceptions are wrong.
Post by R. DeanBut they do. So, given this, and if one were to take the observational
design as real, this could certainly be seen as evidence for a designer.
SO SHOW THAT IT IS REAL, INSTEAD OF JUST ASSERTING IT.
Post by R. DeanBut neither scientist is willing to go there.
Nothing to do with being willing or unwilling, liar.
There is simply no evidence for actual design - just the appearance
of it to those who already believe in a god/designer/creator for
religious reasons.
And they go on to explain why there is no way to determine it.
Your baseless assertions don't count.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeAnd your taking bits out of context to claim that they accept the
popular but incorrect positions they describe before refuting them.
That's your rendering of some scientist statements and the two
mentioned above I suspect you have in mind.
Pretty well every one you have misrepresented - like the PDF of a
lecture about the Anthropic principle where you quoted the lecturer
explaining what it was, as if it were his own position, and ignored
where he explained that it didn't say what you wanted it to and why.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeIn the very message to which I am replying...
"I suspect people who dispute the very idea of design do so for this
very reason - Design suggest a designer, therefore design is anathema.
Design cannot be accepted."
Which would seem to project your own mindset onto them.
My mindset? What do I not accept here? It is you that's in denial.
Do you know what it means when I say design is anathema to them and
cannot be accept?
You just repeated the same lie.
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeeLiar.
I am in denial of nothing.
Nor do I invent motives scientists don't have, when they don't find
the design you want there to be.
How would you know? Again you are not a mind reader.
I know from your own words, liar - like "I suspect people who dispute
the very idea of design do so for this very reason - Design suggest a
designer, therefore design is anathema. Design cannot be accepted."
Post by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by R. DeanPost by Christopher A. LeePost by Vincent MaycockPost by R. DeanI have never nor do I now turn to any religionous
dogma or beliefs for support, since it's not based on the same.
Even though it's the only reason to propose it.
No observation of design is the only reason to propose it.
Religion is a matter of faith: evidence of design serves
absolutely no purpose in religion and does nothing for it.
There is no observation of design.
Which has been explained over and over again.
And I answered you over and over again. At which time
you drag out you old tired and flawed accusations.
You repeated the same old refuted nonsense.
And if you don't like to be treated as the stupid, lying idiot your
posts tell anybody with an education or who has any understanding of
reality that you are, you should at least try not to be one.
Aquinas had to deal with people like you - although it was from a
different perspective...
Originally posted Sept 1993 by Tom Scharle
Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram
libri duodecim) (translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian
Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41)
Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39
The mention of "the literal meaning of Genesis" automatically
distances me from anything pertaining to the following quote.
Post by Christopher A. Lee"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the
motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative
positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the
cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals,
shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as
being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up
vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers
held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and
rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a
field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they
themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in
one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by
those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For
then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue
statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof
and even recite from memory many passages which they think support
their position, although _they understand neither what they say
nor the things about which they make assertion_. [1 Timothy 1.7]"
How does any of this apply to me?
You talk the most complete and utter, ignorant and uneducated
nonsense, to the point of lying about those who know why it is
nonsense, imbecile.
