I was hoping you were serious about creating a consistent intelligent design timeline, could be a fun thought experiment. While I don't think intelligent design should be taught in schools it should be emphasized that our knowledge of the deep past is subjective and speculatory at best. Our model is based off the evidence that has survived and hopefully been correctly interpreted, the evidence is not exhaustive and doesn't tell us everything. Science is sadly taught religiously and as absolute truth in many places, in direct contrast to the spirit and nature of the scientific method.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, etc. etc., and filled it so that under his guiding hand (or not) it became what we know today and will become that which will happen in the future. There, completely consistent with science.

>>411
I think you underestimate the degree of justified confidence scholars of science have in their interpretation of the data. Although the universe is poorly understand, much is known also. Many things are obscured from us in the deep past, but much is also obvious; snapshots from billions of years ago are visible quite plainly in the night sky.

I was taught the history of science and the methodology used to obtain its conclusions, so that I could interpret the results differently. Mechanically, I never could, although I felt that the nuances of meaning were seemingly poorly grasped, especially with the quantum stuff.

You forgot how saltwater-dwelling organisms survived a freshwater flood :p

No joke. I, at eight years old, went up in front of a church and asked this question. The pastor shrugged it off, chuckled that "kids say the damndest things" chuckle, and then I had a beating with a belt waiting for me when I got home. And wouldn't you know it, *somehow* I ended up not being a Christian. Couldn't possibly guess how that happened.

You also forgot the Young Earth Creationists, the people who believe in a literal seven days period of creation. Which throws everything to hell because nothing they say has any backing in science whatsoever and they insist that millions- or billions-of-years intelligent design is a perversion of their belief which is the only one that can be true because their Bible is right because their Bible insists that their Bible is right, hundreds of times. I'd call it circular reasoning, but for reasons of semantics, I don't think you can, because the phrase implies that your reasoning actually goes somewhere before returning to its starting position.

Anyways, it's my understanding that these young earth guys are now saying that the speed of light can vary drastically so they can fill some of the gaping black holes in their theory. Oh, and that also, an explosive expansion of space happened on Day 3. Which means that they believe that a Big Bang happened after all! And they've insisted from the very beginning that that didn't happen! Oh, you Creationists! Always a barrel of laughs!

I want to emphasize the difference between intelligent design and insane young earth creationism. They are not the same, and the former is completely consistent with the observations and inferences made by science.

The problem with OP's post is first that he assumes we have any idea at all what God is doing, or could even begin to comprehend what God "does" and secondly that his motives can be accurately represented through the lens of our rationality.

Then he continues with the typical edgy atheist 100% literal interpretation of biblical scripture, using petty sarcasm to mask anything that doesn't conflict with the naturalistic timeline.

>>514 here

>>516
>Then he continues with the typical edgy atheist 100% literal interpretation

The problem is that it's Christians themselves that are insisting that their Bible must be taken literally. Of course, when a non-Christian brings up one of the batshit insane things that the Old Testament has to say, like slavery being okay or rape victims being required to marry their rapists, suddenly they're all like "Woah hey, you're taking that outta context! You can't do that, man! Not cool!"

>>518

This. Christianity is not some unified entity in regards to interpretation of the bible, many denominations don't look at the bible as anything more than a moral example in some situations and dispensing entirely with the old testament (most of the exceptionally crazy shit is old testament). In fact there are churches where most of the people didn't believe anything beyond the reality of a God incarnate as man, rejecting any specific claims as necessarily false because any story of one trait or act would not be able to communicate the sublime nature of God.

I'm sure you know this, it just bothers me to see educated people disparage the largest religion on the planet based on eccentric beliefs of a subset of that group. So yeah, there are many Christians who look at the bible as not even mostly-true.

>>516
Well, ken ham did emphasize that little bible bit quite alot.

My interest is in doctrinal disputes. What would an orthodox or nestorian christian have to say? Why does the debate rest soley in the hands of the western pentarch and his bastard offspring?

>>534

I'm not making a dispute, I'm just saying it would be interesting to know. From what I know of history, the east was the intellectual center of christendom, for most of it's formative period. If this debate is to be settled in any way, I want to see the best christianity has to offer, for a fair assessment.

It's like if you were learning about egyptology, you'd go to egypt wouldn't you? Or just stay in your university department?

I mean take an outside perspective. As a scholar living in the 12th millenium, interested in the debate for the sake of truth or some other frill. I mean there's hundreds of years of case law on the subject, if you consider church scholarship. Theological academia has a massive tradition, theology being coterminous with philosophy for a great period. So treat the catecheticals like any other text.

I want to see some sources cited and no bullshitting just because it's religion.

I think what he is talking about doctrinal variations in Christianity on the creation of the universe.

The thing is that most eastern churches are different in identity and perspectives towards God, not in their account of creation. So, Saint Thomas Christians in India are creationists regardless of what the Pope thinks.

To find religious organizations that embrace an evolutionary timeline you would have to go to western churches with exposure to quality education. For instance, many Catholic, Episcopal, and Evangelical Lutheran churches in places like the United States and Europe are led and attended by evolutionists from the lay people to high level clergy.

Most churches try to not take a position on the issue at all in order to attract both groups of constituents.

Source: Been to a lot of churches and visited a few of the official websites of major denominations