Recent Posts
The lack of comprehension of my initial observation almost makes me wonder if perhaps while you may know the physical evidence your careers may provide, you lack the philosophical training to grasp the concepts I have given.
Or, just possibly, you lack the knowledge to realize the extent to which your lack of knowledge is muddying up your attempted philosophy?
The lack of comprehension of my initial observation almost makes me wonder if perhaps while you may know the physical evidence your careers may provide, you lack the philosophical training to grasp the concepts I have given.Or, just possibly, you lack the knowledge to realize how your lack of knowledge is interfering with your attempted philosophy?
Or, possibly, the ability to explain it clearly.
Or, possibly, the ability to explain it clearly.
Possibly. What I've been getting is something like this:
The lack of comprehension of my initial observation almost makes me wonder if perhaps while you may know the physical evidence your careers may provide, you lack the philosophical training to grasp the concepts I have given.Or, just possibly, you lack the knowledge to realize the extent to which your lack of knowledge is muddying up your attempted philosophy?
I think I have been unfailingly clear. It just seems that every time I try to explain myself in within parameters you and the others have set for your understanding, I fail to either remember or have knowledge of a specific fact or nuance of terminology which cause everyone to instantly dismisses the extremely simplistic nature of my observation. Seems to me this is more of pick on the new guy because he doesn't know as much as we do.
I think I have been unfailingly clear. It just seems that every time I try to explain myself in within parameters you and the others have set for your understanding, I fail to either remember or have knowledge of a specific fact or nuance of terminology which cause everyone to instantly dismisses the extremely simplistic nature of my observation. Seems to me this is more of pick on the new guy because he doesn't know as much as we do.
Basic knowledge of what you are claiming isn't a "nuance of terminology," though. I'll admit that it sure seems you've been picked on, but mostly that's because you've made claims that not only don't hold up, but that sometimes seem to change from post to post.
Overall, what I've understood from the sum total of your arguments is an opinion that lots of evidence for something is the same as no evidence at all.
And just because I chose not to study rocks and compounds in my educational path, you are not necessarily more educated than me.
"…more educated than I." Not saying that grammatical errors invalidates your point. However, when arguing about one's education level, it is bad form.
The lack of comprehension of my initial observation almost makes me wonder if perhaps while you may know the physical evidence your careers may provide, you lack the philosophical training to grasp the concepts I have given.
I have a wildly crazy theory of another possibility. You didn't 'splain yourself too good. I know. I know. Crazy, huh.
Sebastian has not won any debates talking down to others. It does not appear to be going well for you either. I am starting to see a pattern.
And just because I chose not to study rocks and compounds in my educational path, you are not necessarily more educated than me.
"…more educated than I." Not saying that grammatical errors invalidates your point. However, when arguing about one's education level, it is bad form.
*rolls eyes*
While you are technically correct as this link shows it also discusses the informality and acceptance of the use of "than me". Once again a nuance of teminology being used against me to show how I am totally wrong. Thanks for the example, Fool.
Sebastian has not won any debates talking down to others. It does not appear to be going well for you either. I am starting to see a pattern.
Really? That was the first time I have become testy to anyone. What patterns are you seeing? Maybe it's time for a visit to the eye doctor or perhaps Sebastian's therapist.
This is really going nowhere. I'd REALLY hate to see this thread killed.
What patterns are you seeing?
While not a pattern, the following...
Maybe it's time for a visit to the eye doctor or perhaps Sebastian's therapist.
...is just that extra stab that is truly unnecessary. And you have done this before. Give it a rest.
No matter what your personal feelings toward Sebastian are, in this case, all he is really trying to get you to do is present what you are saying in a coherent and comprehensible manner. A number of people have pointed out that they are never really sure what your points are. It really seems to be a lot of random stuff that contradicts what you have said before, not to mention what others have told you are wrong.
Either A) take a deep breath and start over to try and say what you want to say while being willing to listen to those who really know this stuff or B) politely bow out now (and actually do it).
Once again a nuance of teminology being used against me to show how I am totally wrong.
Not saying that grammatical errors invalidates your point.
I apologize. I obviously failed in expressing myself very well. I was just having a bit of fun. I had no idea it was a topic you were sensitive about. I shall endeavor to be more aware of your feelings.
What patterns are you seeing?
Again, I apologize for so obviously directing that solely at you and not mentioning another soul in that post. What I meant to say was that I have seen a lot of people act all superior and rude
I'm still confused with what makes evolution and Genesis mutually exclusionary. The theory of evolution merely states that the environment is a factor in the long term development of a species. Hell I'm still confused about the whole concept that we can apply our perspective to that of an infinite being that has no begining or end. Think about that the passage of time for us is a matter of perception. You honestly think that 7 days of God Time is the same as 7 days of my time? Then we move into the whole need to confess our sins, hmm if god knows all and sees all what would the point be? I do something I later regret and God knows if I really meant it or if I'm just lying so I can score points in the eyes of society.
I'm still confused with what makes evolution and Genesis mutually exclusionary.
I don't understand the problem either. Nor did Pope John Paul II. Nor do many of the religious scholars on the site that Moff referenced.
The only potential conflicts are (a) on the one hand, when people read Genesis so literally that they insist on a young earth, a literal 7-day creation, and a sudden *poof* appearance of man; and (b) on the other hand, when people get so carried away with strictly naturalistic explanations being possible, that they try and then claim that no deity could possibly have overseen them in the background.
I'm still confused with what makes evolution and Genesis mutually exclusionary.I don't understand the problem either. Nor did Pope John Paul II. Nor do many of the religious scholars on the site that Moff referenced.
The only potential conflicts are (a) on the one hand, when people read Genesis so literally that they insist on a young earth, a literal 7-day creation, and a sudden *poof* appearance of man; and (b) on the other hand, when people get so carried away with strictly naturalistic explanations being possible, that they try and then claim that no deity could possibly have overseen them in the background.
Yes.
Or, often what happens is that well meaning people start with a conclusion without a good understanding of the process or even what the question might be.
Basic knowledge of what you are claiming isn't a "nuance of terminology," though. I'll admit that it sure seems you've been picked on, but mostly that's because you've made claims that not only don't hold up, but that sometimes seem to change from post to post.
I...just don't get it. For all the education you all claim to have, none of you have noticed that most of your refudations of my simple comment are mostly based on my misuse of a few words. I may have used origin of life and origin of man interchangeably until you said it was causing you to lose sleep, so I stopped. I used the word theory when I should have used postulate/hypothesis/conjecture. I didn't know that using the term Darwinism was going to cause you to forget the average layman has never heard of Mendel or that evolutionary process is now called "synthesis". All of you have been beating me over the head with these minor errors that for my friends and I would be perfectly understood to stand for the wider concept, not specific narrow ideas that you are personally familiar with due to your professions.
Perhaps that is the reason you think I flip-flop when in fact I am trying to say the same thing every time, but it seems each time, you decide one phrase or another is completely out of bounds from the intended use because science has already zoomed past it which the average person not in the field isn't going to know. At heart, what I stated is simple. I was consistent, and I had thought about quoting all the various posts where I summarized it, since they are all the same. I realized it just doesn't matter. While, until recently, at least Kirth was polite, at this stage none of you are allowing any possibility for anything I have to say since I don't seem to know the right buzz words. At this point I will do as suggested and simply bow out of the conversation.
I have an easier time accepting the Bible if I do not have to take it literally.
However, Genesis was written by Moses as dictated by god, correct? Surely god would have understood Moses understanding of 'day'. Was it not important enough to god to explain to Moses that god's day was different than Moses day? Or did god purposely mislead Moses? If it is not important to the point of the story, why mention it at all?
What is the point to the "story" as you see it?
To explain where we come from and why we are here. If we evolved from monkeys, that does seem a rather important point. How long it took god to create the universe is not really important. A simple, "It took a long time." would suffice.
(And do you think that Moses would have understood about dinos or millions of years, etc.?)
Considering his instructor is omnipotent and omniscient, yes. My six year old daughter has a pretty good grasp of dinosaurs and millions of years. Are you implying she is smarter than Moses?
Perhaps that is the reason you think I flip-flop when in fact I am trying to say the same thing every time, but it seems each time, you decide one phrase or another is completely out of bounds from the intended use because science has already zoomed past it which the average person not in the field isn't going to know. At heart, what I stated is simple. I was consistent, and I had thought about quoting all the various posts where I summarized it, since they are all the same.
I still don't understand your point, then. You seem to have been saying that "scientists take everything on faith." When it was illustrated that that isn't -- or at least, shouldn't be -- how science works, and any number of your examples were dissected to show that, you then claimed that how science works is irrelevant. Yet, your original, underlying point seems to be exactly about how you perceive that science works. So I'm totally at a loss at this point to see what you're getting at.
If your point is the oft-made one that "scientists take it on faith that God didn't do everything," that's not strictly the case, either. We are restricted by method to look for naturalistic explanations -- ones that do leave observable evidence -- but it's totally outside of the realm of science to make any statements regarding the involvement, or lack of involvement, of a deity in setting those processes in motion. Science deals with "how," not "why." Is that your issue with it?
To explain where we come from and why we are here. If we evolved from monkeys, that does seem a rather important point.
Why? The point is that God created us. What difference does it make if he formed us literally out of the ooze (which ultimately may have been what happened) or that we evolved (he formed us) from ape creatures?
How long it took god to create the universe is not really important. A simple, "It took a long time." would suffice.
I believe that this is what the original author(s) had in mind when they wrote it. And there has been much discussion over the translation of "day" in the context.
(And do you think that Moses would have understood about dinos or millions of years, etc.?)
Considering his instructor is omnipotent and omniscient, yes. My six year old daughter has a pretty good grasp of dinosaurs and millions of years. Are you implying she is smarter than Moses?
In many ways, yes. She also knows that the earth is round which is really a relatively new concept considering how long man has been around. How much understanding can one have when their entire "world" might consist of a few thousand miles? (How far is it from Cairo to Jerusalem?) From what you're saying, why didn't God explain genes, atoms, the universe, the process of fossilization, etc. I mean he was an adult, right? He should have been able to understand all that. Your daughter is starting her life with a FAR different understanding of most things than any did 6,000 years ago (give or take). In addition, he was writing this stuff down not just for him, but for everyone at the time. So not only did he have to understand it, but it had to be simple enough for everyone else to be able to understand it as well.
Could he be saying that, at some point, you take the information collected by your senses on faith? Is it faith that the 'proof' offered by other scientist is correct? Yes, there are protocols to ensure accuracy and honesty, but where you there to ensure they were followed?
Dunno. Certainly, we tear each other's work apart on a regular basis -- I've done so before, and had it done to me. It's part of being a scientist. The rule is that you have to expect every other scientist in the world to start with your raw data and/or setup, and to go through your conclusions with a magnifying class and quite possibly re-do your experiments to make sure they come out the same way. Yes, it's possible that the same experiment, repeated over and over, could yield different results, but that God alters them at the last second, or at least our perception of them, in order to fool us. It's also possible that God moves/alters/creates fossils to fool us, not to mention evidence of a common origin for all life. It's possible he makes amino acids combine into proteins under the right chemical conditions (or make them appear to do so) just to fool us.
But no one that I'm aware of -- neither scientists, nor biblical Creationists, nor fundamental Hindus, nor anyone else that I know of -- seem to be of the opinion that God exists solely in order to fool His creations with petty pranks.
I have to say I find god, or Moses terrible story tellers then. "I created you." gets to the point and does not add a bunch of questionable elements.
'Day' seems a really bad stand in for 'a long time'. I am willing to accept that the translation is imperfect as long as you are willing to accept I am not going to accept your rules at face value with imperfect translations. I do not mean for this to be directed specifically at you, Moff. I do not believe you, personally, have ever expected me to follow the Christian Bible. I am speaking more to the ever loving Christians who condemn homosexuality.
I really do not see how difficult it would be to explain to a Bronze Age individual that A) it took a long time to create the universe and B) there were other creatures here before you that are no longer. Now if god were trying to teach Moses how to play Hero…
Could he be saying that, at some point, you take the information collected by your senses on faith? Is it faith that the 'proof' offered by other scientist is correct? Yes, there are protocols to ensure accuracy and honesty, but where you there to ensure they were followed?Dunno. Certainly, we tear each other's work apart on a regular basis -- I've done so before, and had it done to me. It's part of being a scientist. The rule is that you have to expect every other scientist in the world to start with your raw data and/or setup, and to go through your conclusions with a magnifying class and quite possibly re-do your experiments to make sure they come out the same way. Yes, it's possible that the same experiment, repeated over and over, could yield different results, but that God alters them at the last second, or at least our perception of them, in order to fool us. It's also possible that God moves/alters/craetes fossils to fool us, and evidence of a common origin for all life. It's possible he makes amino acids combine into proteins under the right chemical conditions (or make them appear to do so) just to fool us.
But no one that I'm aware of -- neither scientists, nor Creationists -- seem to be of the opinion that God exists solely in order to fool His creations with petty pranks.
Kirth,
I don't think the perception argument was his point. I think it was that because we can't completely recreate all the conditions of the young earth, we can't ever know whether the organic molecules can self-assemble because we'll never know if the conditions are exactly right. And if that was his point he's correct.But, saying that accepting that any partial recreation is likely to be close to what happened is 'blind faith' falls quite wide of the mark. We can never perfectly recreate anything, so that would mean nothing can ever be known. Mind you, science done in theoretically perfect manner already knows this, but humans don't deal with uncertainties well.
On the other hand, he's left the thread, so discussing what he did and didn't mean is rather pointless.
Sigh poking holes in the Bible is pretty easy.Poking holes in it without being at all familiar with it, was the issue in point. If a person wants to debate a specific issue, for example Christ being "handed over" to Pilate, it helps if they've at least read Matthew and Luke, for starters. Likewise, debating evolution without understanding the theory is a recipe for ridicule. And don't get me started about people with absolutely zero knowledge of climate science spouting off that "they know for sure" that global warming is a hoax, or is true, or is because of El Nino, or whatver other random, baseless opinions they come up with.
Anyone with half a brain knows that global warming is a farce, the rise in the earths average tempature is the result of Chuck Norris' rage boiling over. ;)
What difference does it make if he formed us literally out of the ooze (which ultimately may have been what happened) or that we evolved (he formed us) from ape creatures?
Just for the record, what I said above I feel is both true. "Out of the ooze" is the origin of life. I still think that it's amazing that some random "event" or whatever caused these amino acid strands to replicate. But not just replicate but somehow have it coded in them to "replicate" with modifications to their structure which gives way to growth and ultimately "evolution" or whatever. I also believe that something more than "simple" evolution gave us our intelligence/soul/whatever.
But I've said all this before.
What difference does it make if he formed us literally out of the ooze (which ultimately may have been what happened) or that we evolved (he formed us) from ape creatures?Just for the record, what I said above I feel is both true. "Out of the ooze" is the origin of life. I still think that it's amazing that some random "event" or whatever caused these amino acid strands to replicate. But not just replicate but somehow have it coded in them to "replicate" with modifications to their structure which gives way to growth and ultimately "evolution" or whatever. I also believe that something more than "simple" evolution gave us our intelligence/soul/whatever.
But I've said all this before.
That's a good point. Science assumes the laws of physics and the way matter interacts - as far as I know, there isn't any scientific theory for why the laws of physics are the way they are. I think that gets to Kirth's repeated statement that the why question is not something science answers. It may well be that god created physics and matter in such a way that the amino acid soup could exist in the first place, and that the natural consequence of such a soup was life. Therefore, given that god created the soup, that means he also created life, albeit in a more indirect manner.
I have to say I find god, or Moses terrible story tellers then. "I created you." gets to the point and does not add a bunch of questionable elements.
'Day' seems a really bad stand in for 'a long time'. I am willing to accept that the translation is imperfect as long as you are willing to accept I am not going to accept your rules at face value with imperfect translations. I do not mean for this to be directed specifically at you, Moff. I do not believe you, personally, have ever expected me to follow the Christian Bible. I am speaking more to the ever loving Christians who condemn homosexuality.
I really do not see how difficult it would be to explain to a Bronze Age individual that A) it took a long time to create the universe and B) there were other creatures here before you that are no longer. Now if god were trying to teach Moses how to play Hero…
Can't do much with your "ever loving Christians", but I'll do my best. ;-)
Actually, it makes for a much better "story". While it truly is unknown for certain who really wrote Genesis, I also don't know when it was actually written down for others. I believe (and I could be wrong here) that a lot of stuff at this time was much more word of mouth than actually written. Stone tablets were a bit of a bear to drag around and Genesis is a LONG book to write on stone. I can see it now, Moses gathers the tribe together, builds a huge bonfire, there's a hush over the crowd, Moses clears his throat and says "God created you. The End."
I'm not a linguist or an anthropologist, so I'm going off of other peoples stuff with regard to translation and so on. The first chapter of Genesis is written in poetic form. It may have even been sung. There is repetition and praise. Why say "God created everything" when you could say "God created the moon, the stars, the water the sky, the land the air the fish the birds the beautiful mountains the trees and flowers, all the animals and even man"? Which one is better story telling? "Day" separates the sections as much as anything. And was probably more a tool for doing so than to give a literal timeline.
Re: Hero -- it wouldn't be fair. He knows the code for bringing the plagues down upon his enemies.
I think I have been unfailingly clear. It just seems that every time I try to explain myself in within parameters you and the others have set for your understanding, I fail to either remember or have knowledge of a specific fact or nuance of terminology which cause everyone to instantly dismisses the extremely simplistic nature of my observation. Seems to me this is more of pick on the new guy because he doesn't know as much as we do.
Let me try to see if I get it:
You are saying that, since theoretical constructs depend on postulates, one has to have faith in those postulates ? Is that what you are saying ?
Or are you saying that to pursue the investigation or proposition of scientific hypotheses is meaningless unless you have all possible evidence beforehand ?
Or are you saying that, for instance, if we know for a fact that life forms exist and existed before, even then, we cannot draw theories concerning those very life forms unless we also know how they came into being ?
Please help me here, so that we can properly discuss this in philosophical grounds.
Basic knowledge of what you are claiming isn't a "nuance of terminology," though. I'll admit that it sure seems you've been picked on, but mostly that's because you've made claims that not only don't hold up, but that sometimes seem to change from post to post.I...just don't get it. For all the education you all claim to have, none of you have noticed that most of your refudations of my simple comment are mostly based on my misuse of a few words. I may have used origin of life and origin of man interchangeably until you said it was causing you to lose sleep, so I stopped. I used the word theory when I should have used postulate/hypothesis/conjecture. I didn't know that using the term Darwinism was going to cause you to forget the average layman has never heard of Mendel or that evolutionary process is now called "synthesis". All of you have been beating me over the head with these minor errors that for my friends and I would be perfectly understood to stand for the wider concept, not specific narrow ideas that you are personally familiar with due to your professions.
Perhaps that is the reason you think I flip-flop when in fact I am trying to say the same thing every time, but it seems each time, you decide one phrase or another is completely out of bounds from the intended use because science has already zoomed past it which the average person not in the field isn't going to know. At heart, what I stated is simple. I was consistent, and I had thought about quoting all the various posts where I summarized it, since they are all the same. I realized it just doesn't matter. While, until recently, at least Kirth was polite, at this stage none of you are allowing any possibility for anything I have to say since I don't seem to know the right buzz words. At this point I will do as suggested and simply bow out of the conversation.
It isn't just that your using the wrong words. It is the fact that the arguments you make are just plain wrong a lot of the time, you don't realise they are, because you don't know anything about the subject at hand. for instance the process of evolution isn't called synthesis. synthesis is combining two things to form a new thing. The Neo-mendelian-darwinian synthesis, refers to the combination of numerous threads of research which combined to form the modern theory of evolution. Predominant amongst these elements are the work of Charles Darwin and gregor mendel, the father of genetics, who's work on the selective breeding of Peas was the birth of our understanding of genetics. It was mendal's work that gave a means of heritablity to darwins work.
I don't like picking people up on anything related to language skills. I know whats it is like to not always be able to express an argument well, based on the face your language skills let you down, but i don't believe the problem lies with a lack of underlying skills with you. Rather it seems to be that you do not actually understands the idea's your trying to convay. You don't seem to undertand that there is even a difference between saying 'there is no evidence that humans evolved' and there is no evidence that life came about from naturalistic causes.
You don't seem to understand why there is a difference between inderpendantly varifiable evidence and personal experience.
Until you grasp this stuff, you arn't going to be able to make your argument. It doesn't help that your also deeply miss informed about the evidence that does exist. For instance, we have a great deal of evidence that we share common ancestory with other great apes.
That evidence comes in many forms, but the two i can easily talk about are the physical remains of other memebers of the genus homo. There are 13 species in the genus, of which we are one. We have multiple examples of each of these species. They show numerous devopemental paths. We have more than 'a few bones in the dirt', we have a lot of material. Yet it isn't really our best evidence.
That, in my oppinion comes in the form of genetic evidence, specificially retroviral markers in out genome, which we share with other apes.
When a retrovirus attacks an individual it leaves a chunk of its DNA in that animals genome at a specific point. That leaves a genetic marker that we can read using the same methods we use for genetic finger printing and paternity testing. These markers get passed down through generations.
This means we can A, see that we share retroviral markers with apes, and that we must have a common ancestor with them and that B, we can tell when relatively, the split occured. There is an entire branch of genetics which works on this, called Phylogenetics. It is really interesting stuff. It is shows this discipline, beyond shadow of a doubt, that we share a common ancestor , with every other discovered species alive in the world today, along with many others no longer alive.
If you want to discuss the origin of that organism, well i'm all up for that.
I think I have been unfailingly clear. It just seems that every time I try to explain myself in within parameters you and the others have set for your understanding, I fail to either remember or have knowledge of a specific fact or nuance of terminology which cause everyone to instantly dismisses the extremely simplistic nature of my observation. Seems to me this is more of pick on the new guy because he doesn't know as much as we do.
No one is picking on you. Some of us are getting a little annoyed sure, but it isn't with you per say, but rather with certain arguments and modes of thought that your using. I can say with some certainty, that every one of those people who have been involved with the creationism verse evolution debate, has come across, and rebutted many of your statements many times before. It is why i ranted at you for saying 'it's only a theory', because i have had to rebut that argument perhapes a hundred times in the last year alone, and it really annoys me.
Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?
The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.
The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?
Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.
Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the- Creator-claims-academic.html
Translations such tricksy little devils...
Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.
It still boils down to Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Not including how things work does not discount from reality. Keep in mind the Bible includes zero information about the Earth being round, Orbiting a Sun, other planets, other galaxies?
How ever if we were to claim that evolution is junk based on the fact that God created man with no real explanation? Wouldn't we also have to discount the facts we know that also aren't in the bible?
The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?
I actually think that a better question to ask is "What is the point to the story?"
Far too often, it seems like people get hung up on what is "literal" and what isn't. When the answer to that question doesn't change the point of the story.
And the "point" is never to kill babies.
And, yes -- there are a lot of stories that have been largely overlooked or ignored. It seems lik most people who bring them up seem to have those one or two stories in their bag of tricks to try and point out just how wrong the Bible is. I really think that a large reason for people not dealing with them or addressing them (or bringing them up in Sunday School) is because most people don't have enough background to understand what the passages are really talking about. We read it as though it's American literature and try and apply 20th century American ideas and practices to a middle eastern passage that's thousands of years old. When that doesn't work, Christians often choose to ignore said passages for something easier and others point it out jumping up and down as though it's "proof" that the Bible is "bad" or "wrong".
Well, because (using Christian terminology) we have the gift of Reason. We can use our judgement and experience to tell us what the useful morals are, the ones that make sense for today's world. Our brains are "wired" in such a way that we are able to understand that a fictional fable (a la Aesop) might still have a highly relevant moral to it, and what that moral is, and how to best put it into action.
"But," you can say, "what if people interpret it using their 'reason' to think they need to keep slaves?" I'd personally respond that "reason" involves experience and logical extrapolation of "what if." What if I keep slaves? A: It's not only illegal, it's an insult to the dignity of mankind, and it makes me universally hated by all men. Bad outcome obvious = I made a lousy interpretation.
I suspect that too-literal inferences will almost always end up in "road to Hell" (i.e., everyone loses) progressions of that sort. Interpretations rooted in an ethos of tolerance and universal love more often won't. If in doubt, we've got plenty of other references to check our conclusions against, like the Buddhist Sutras or the "optimal outcomes" of game theory. If multiple sources, filtered through Reason and goodwill, lead to a conclusion like "don't keep slaves," well, that conclusion is more likely to be sound than one that contradicts every indicator.
Yeah, that means there's no "absolute authority" but our own judgement and experience. But who said life was fair? Free will comes with its own set of difficulties.