The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: franksolich on November 16, 2008, 01:22:38 PM
-
I don't have a dog in this fight, since my own religion tells me that God is the First Cause of all things, all else being irrelevant, but I thought this was funny.
Proponents of evolution, who might or might not be correct, allege themselves to be "enlightened rational" people, when in fact they make those who advocate the other two major theories (creationism and aliens-from-outer-space-ism) look eminently reasonable in comparison.
Hardly anything else in life is more silly than watching one of them thump the science book and preach the gospel of evolution.
This, from England:
One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution
One in three teachers believes schoolchildren should be taught that creationism is just as valid as evolution, according to a survey.
The poll also disclosed that pupils in almost a third of schools already learn about the controversial divine explanation of the universe, with even science teachers thinking it has a place in classrooms.
Almost all of those questioned by Teachers TV, a satellite television channel, agreed that children with strong religious beliefs would feel excluded from science lessons if their views were ignored.
The findings support the views of the Rev Professor Michael Reiss, who lost his job as director of education at the Royal Society, Britain's prestigious scientific academy, after calling for creationism to be included in school science lessons.
The ordained Church of England minister said the idea that the Earth was made by God 10,000 years ago should be discussed if pupils raise it, because "banging on" about natural selection would not lead evangelical Christians or Muslims to change their views.
But he was forced to step down after his views were denounced as "dangerous" and "outrageous" by two Nobel laureates and the Royal Society claimed he had damaged its reputation.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/article3393175.ece
This augments an earlier poll, taken in England about two years ago, that showed something like 63% of all Englishmen do not believe in the theory of evolution.
As England is rated as the "most secular," least-church-going, least Christian-affiliation, society in all of Europe, one can't blame "Christian 'fundamentalists'" for this.
-
One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution
Then astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside physics, and levitation arts alongside of physics.
-
Can we mandate that evolution be taught at church then?
There is no all inclusive story of creation. If public funded schools where to begin teaching the Christian/Judea/Islamic story of creation, then they would have to start teaching every major religions story as well, otherwise we'd start getting to the point where the government was elevating a specific religion above another, and I believe that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
-
Can we mandate that evolution be taught at church then?
There is no all inclusive story of creation. If public funded schools where to begin teaching the Christian/Judea/Islamic story of creation, then they would have to start teaching every major religions story as well, otherwise we'd start getting to the point where the government was elevating a specific religion above another, and I believe that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
Pretty much. Also, Creationism (all forms) is NOT a "theory" by any scientific definition.
-
Can we mandate that evolution be taught at church then?
There is no all inclusive story of creation. If public funded schools where to begin teaching the Christian/Judea/Islamic story of creation, then they would have to start teaching every major religions story as well, otherwise we'd start getting to the point where the government was elevating a specific religion above another, and I believe that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
This is England, remember; no "separation of church and state" in England.
-
This is England, remember; no "separation of church and state" in England.
Yeah. I was speaking in terms of the US though. If Britain wants to do that, it's their own prerogative.
-
Then astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside physics, and levitation arts alongside of physics.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough, sir; sorry.
It's not about the origins of mankind; it's about how people who imagine themselves "rational" and "logical" and "scientific" turn out actually to be intolerant narrow-minded "believers," which is the opposite of rational, logical, and scientific.
The believers in only one religion; evolutionism.
Reality is Infinite; the human mind, even collectively, all of us, is finite.
The finite cannot comprehend the Infinite.
Therefore, the Truth, the final irrevocable Truth, with all contrary to it being lies, cannot be determined by man.
I suppose it depends upon what crowd one hangs around with the most, but in my experience, the most offputting have been the evolution cultists, with their rabid strident insistence that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
And so I get a great deal of merriment when such people get egg on the face.
-
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough, sir; sorry.
It's not about the origins of mankind; it's about how people who imagine themselves "rational" and "logical" and "scientific" turn out actually to be intolerant narrow-minded "believers," which is the opposite of rational, logical, and scientific.
The believers in only one religion; evolutionism.
Reality is Infinite; the human mind, even collectively, all of us, is finite.
The finite cannot comprehend the Infinite.
Therefore, the Truth, the final irrevocable Truth, with all contrary to it being lies, cannot be determined by man.
I suppose it depends upon what crowd one hangs around with the most, but in my experience, the most offputting have been the evolution cultists, with their rabid strident insistence that they are right and everybody else is wrong.
And so I get a great deal of merriment when such people get egg on the face.
Not quite sure where you are going with this, Coach.
I agree about the Ultimate Truth resting with God, but that really has nothing to do with evolution (not quite sure what an "evolutionist" is).
The belief in God and His love for us and how he created the Universe -- and the analysis thereof -- belongs in the areas of theology or philosophy.
Observing this Universe, understanding the rules He established and how they do not change arbitrarily, seeing how those rules apply in the past, present and future -- that is the realm of science, which is where the Theory of Evolution firmly sits.
-
Not quite sure where you are going with this, Coach.
Where I'm going with this is a jab at people who think they know all, understand all.
In this particular instance, people who are damned certain about the origins of mankind; that their theory, and only their theory, is the ONLY correct one, and anybody who believes otherwise is ignorant.
Isn't a closed mind something these same people accuse "religious" people of having?
Talk about projecting.
As I said, I don't care about the origins of mankind; whether we descended from apes or were created by God or brought here by aliens from outer space.
The more important question is, who and what are we?, not where did we come from?
Human perception is faulty, and throughout all of history, a great many "scientific" "truths" have been found to be not so. As I've said before, I fully expect that sometime during my lifetime, the law of gravity will be disproved, replaced by something else, and sometime during this century, that 2 + 2 = 4 will prove wrong, being replaced by something else.
The only Final, Ultimate, Unchanging, Irrevocable, Eternal Truth is God--which the finite intellect of man cannot possibly comprehend.
When the world is full of ambiguities and mysteries, it is hazardous to declare "such-and-such is the truth, and all contrary to it are false."
-
Then astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside physics, and levitation arts alongside of physics.
Isn't that merely teaching disproven science alongside not-yet-proven science?
-
Isn't that merely teaching disproven science alongside not-yet-proven science?
No it is teaching mythology alongside well-proven science.
-
When the world is full of ambiguities and mysteries, it is hazardous to declare "such-and-such is the truth, and all contrary to it are false."
Any scientist who says that is not a scientist at all.
Science says "I have this set of observations. From those observations I can create a picture -- a model if you will." As addition observations arrive they will disprove the model completely or make the model more complete.
There has never been a single observation to disprove TToE -- and it is supported by other branches of science. OTOH, billions -- BILLIONS -- of observations have continued to both support the underlying model (a scientific theory).<p>
A handful of people putting their hands over their ears and eyes because they don't like the conclusions no more removes that body of data than a single person can stop a tidal wave by standing on the sand and holding his hand out.
Science advances human knowledge and generally improves life -- if used properly. It is God's gift to Man to help us understand our physical world.
-
No it is teaching mythology alongside well-proven science.
I do believe that astrology and alchemy were considered scientific in their day. As at all times, the science of the day is that which we think we have or can prove. And, as always, later scientists look back at the nutty ideas of the past with contempt. Imagine what tomorrow's scientists will think of the nuttiest "proven science" we believe today.
-
Any scientist who says that is not a scientist at all.
Science says "I have this set of observations. From those observations I can create a picture -- a model if you will." As addition observations arrive they will disprove the model completely or make the model more complete.
There has never been a single observation to disprove TToE -- and it is supported by other branches of science. OTOH, billions -- BILLIONS -- of observations have continued to both support the underlying model (a scientific theory).<p>
A handful of people putting their hands over their ears and eyes because they don't like the conclusions no more removes that body of data than a single person can stop a tidal wave by standing on the sand and holding his hand out.
Science advances human knowledge and generally improves life -- if used properly. It is God's gift to Man to help us understand our physical world.
Big if...
-
I do believe that astrology and alchemy were considered scientific in their day. As at all times, the science of the day is that which we think we have or can prove. And, as always, later scientists look back at the nutty ideas of the past with contempt. Imagine what tomorrow's scientists will think of the nuttiest "proven science" we believe today.
That is true of all branches of science. Physics probably has more to worry about than TToE, If you find several billion bones and bone fragments, along with trace fora and fauna, along strata that can be dated, and observed micro-evolution you probably have a pretty good picture that won't be shaken deeply.<p>
Trying to describe WHY light comes in particles and moves in waves or what the fundamental underlying forces that CAUSE gravity, ITOH, are subject to a LOT of change in a short time that could cause many theories to be discarded or heavily modified.
-
Big if...
I use a couple of miracle drugs to stay alive. I call that "used properly."
-
Any scientist who says that is not a scientist at all.
Oh, but they do say that, and their acolytes are even more noisome than authentic scientists about the matter; I give you the example of the malicious cartoon character primitive, the "Kelvin Mace" primitive, and the instance the nocturnally foul one who, while not accepting evolution 100%, thinks all other theories are garbage.
These guys are SO convinced that evolution is absolutely right, the only correct thing, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.
Again, I guess it depends upon which crowd one runs around with, to determine the most ideologically-rigid and narrow-minded. I imagine in some parts of the country, it's those who believe God spontaneously created man; in other parts of the country, it's those who believe aliens from outer space brought us here; and in yet other parts of the country, it's those who boisterously preach the gospel of evolution.
Nebraska has always been a hotbed of evolutionary sentiment, and that's the environment in which I grew up. I'm not sure why this is, but evolution was taught in elementary and high schools in Nebraska as long ago as the 1880s (of course, Nebraska pretty much didn't exist prior to the 1880s).
The "creationists" and the alienists have always been outmanned, outgunned, in Nebraska, and it doesn't help that governmental funding of the evolution religion (in the schools and colleges) gives evolution much credibility and respectability, as compared with these other religions.
I might be off by a grade or so, but I believe it was in the 3rd grade that I first learned of evolution. It made sense to me, so I figured, ho-hum, on to the next chapter......
And it wasn't until I was a junior in high school that I learned this wasn't quite the case, it being only a theory and not established fact.
I supposed if one had taken a poll of my own generation, probably it would show that 90% of Nebraskans believed in evolution; if one were to take a poll of Nebraskans today, probably it would show only 50%, maybe even less, believe in evolution.
Now, this decrease in the proportion of Nebraskans believing in evolution can't be due to "pernicious" "religious influence," because in my lifetime on into the current generation, the influence of religion has temporarily declined--and oh, so precipitously--not increased.
And so it has to be something else, why fewer people believe in evolution.
I think it has to do with two things: (a) the utter pomposity, the utter self-righteousness, the utter arrogance, of those who allege to be "rational" "logical" "clear-thinking" people, who try to jam evolution down others' throats.
And (b) an evolving sense of doubt about what is "certain" in an always-changing world where Reality is not only Infinite, but slippery, hard to grasp.
It's all good, this doubt.
-
These guys are SO convinced that evolution is absolutely right, the only correct thing, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.
And what have you to say about those who are so absolutely convinced that the bibles story of creationism is right, that they deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other such animals that existed before humans? What do you have to say about those who are so wrapped up in their religious teachings that they view those of us who would see outside of it as "stupid"?
I could without a doubt gaurantee you that they far out number the people your complaining about Frank.
-
These guys are SO convinced that evolution is absolutely right, the only correct thing, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.
Oh, Coach, you have been badly misled.
No one says evolution is absolutely right -- not in the way you mean. What they are saying is that evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the massive body of data and that no scientific alternatives have been found. It means that to not understand this means you are willingly blinding yourself to science. It is analogous to saying that since you can't see the wind it can't carry aircraft. You can BELIEVE that, but it doesn't change the underlying science.
And a "theory" is not a "grown up hypothesis." A theory is the highest level of understanding in science. "Just a theory" applies to non-scientific thought, never to science.
Stephen J. Gould put it best:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.
...
[Scientific] Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
...
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
In this context, TToE is a scientific fact, if not a metaphysical one (which I believe YOU believe is being asserted when scientists say TToE is a "fact."
And no one is "jamming TToE down" anyone's throat, any more than they are "jamming chemistry" down their throats or "jamming physics" down their throats.
Physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology -- all these directly contravene literal Genesis and literal creation. How come we don't have people protesting these branches of science? Because creationism is selectively "enforced" -- the conclusions of these other sciences don't offend people. The conclusions of TToE does (some).
So if you believe that creationism is a competing theory to TToE then it is a competing theory to ALL science.
And that is withOUT bringing up what criteria an idea must meet before qualifying as a Scientific Theory.
-
And what have you to say about those who are so absolutely convinced that the bibles story of creationism is right, that they deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other such animals that existed before humans? What do you have to say about those who are so wrapped up in their religious teachings that they view those of us who would see outside of it as "stupid"?
I could without a doubt gaurantee you that they far out number the people your complaining about Frank.
Oh, I dunno, djones, sir.
As I said, it probably depends upon what predominates in one's own area of the country; and in this, the heart of America, it's always been the evolution lobby.
A lot of that is probably due to the religious preferences of the state, in which Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism (all three synods) totally predominate.
-
Oh, I dunno, djones, sir.
As I said, it probably depends upon what predominates in one's own area of the country; and in this, the heart of America, it's always been the evolution lobby.
A lot of that is probably due to the religious preferences of the state, in which Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism (all three synods) totally predominate.
The Catholic Church is a proponent of teaching TToE.
-
Isn't that merely teaching disproven science alongside not-yet-proven science?
Worshipers of science will never understand that. By denying creation the status of "science", they can keep the theory of evolution in a nice, neat little package. Denying explanations that conflict with one's own has been a common tactic for eons, and it certainly isn't limited to creation or evolution. Can you say "globalwarming" boys & girls?
-
There is a large table lamp here, behind the computer.
I look at the lamp-shade, and it's white to me.
I imagine most would agree, yeah, that lamp-shade's white.
Using "scientific" observation.
However, how do we know for a fact that the lamp-shade's really white?
Our eyeballs after all have limitations, and there's the matter of one's perceptions being distorted by life-experiences.
But nonetheless, the lamp-shade seems white, and most would agree it's white.
Based upon faith that our vision and perception are correct.
"Based upon faith."
That is what all life is, faith; simply trust that our limited and fallible human skills at observation are accurate.
Science is faith just as much as Presbyterianism or Coueism; the only dead certainty, the only absolute Truth, is God.....which of course means the Truth, being Infinite, is far beyond the finite capability of mankind to grasp.
"Scientific" truth is always shifting, never coming to a complete stop, a complete resolution.
One time while in the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants with free medical care for all, I observed something, a description of which I gave to a physical education professor at the University of Nebraska sometime later.
The good professor said such was an impossibility; it could not be done, as it defied all the laws of anatomy and gravity and human strength.....and especially not done by a badly-nourished, badly-healthed, stunted-growth teenager.
But I saw it with my own eyes; observed it carefully and closely, and hundreds of others saw it too, although they weren't nearly as impressed as I was.
The lad leaped into the air, did a flip-over, and then came down with only one hand on the ground, holding the rest of his body up in the air. On that one hand, he did two things at the same time; he shoved himself up-and-down into the air, sort of "hopping," using his hand, and at the same time.....rotated, spinning himself around in circles.
(This apparently was some sort of ancient Ukrainian folk-dance.)
It was shown to me that by the standards of "scientific" textbooks on anatomy and gymnastics, such a thing is impossible.
Yet I saw it with my own eyes, as did hundreds of other people, and it was apparent that all these people (with the exception of myself) had seen the phenomenon so many times they weren't even impressed by it. They seemed to appreciate it, but it wasn't as if they hadn't seen it before.
Science is really nothing more than blind faith; blind faith that one's perception and powers of observation and conclusions are correct.....and the whole history of mankind betrays that such faith is misplaced.
-
Science is a continuous search for fact. It is limited by the ability to accurately observe. The lampshace is not "white" it simply reflects all visible (to us) wavelenengths of light. My "red" sweater is not "red" but reflects that portion of the spectrum, absorbing the rest. And so on.
Science and its' throries are supurbe ways of describing the reality we live in, and every day we learn that the description is not 100Z%, or even close.That more remains to be learned by a wide margin than we know, but at least we know that the knowledge CAN BE OBTAINED.
The mystery is in the CREATION of it all, the brilliant past all understanding creation of so ccomplex a ayatem that permits everything from clusters of Galexys to interstelar dust becoming the building blocks of life , amino acids, whils still in deep space, to bacteria to this livinng world. Even more amaszing is the existance of an animal that can wonder and appreciate the incredible beauty that is this universe.
THAT is where faith and the Creator enters in. Not in the dogmatic reading of ancient texts as literal revealed word of God the Creator. There is revealed wisdom, to be sure, but is is not about the begats and the age of the earth. It is about human relationships , kindness, compassion, tollerance and understanding...the Golden Rule being the base of what is expected. That is where it starts, and we're warned, ingore these things, and our worldly works are dust.
-
It is about human relationships , kindness, compassion, tollerance and understanding...the Golden Rule being the base of what is expected. That is where it starts, and we're warned, ignore these things, and our worldly works are dust.
That, sir, is correct.
Quibbles over the origins of mankind are just so much noisy chitchattery, especially since the human mind in this world will never know the Truth anyway.
It's far more important for us to waste forests of trees and oceans of ink discussing what we are, and what we are as compared with what we could be, rather than why we became to be.
-
Worshipers of science will never understand that. By denying creation the status of "science", they can keep the theory of evolution in a nice, neat little package. Denying explanations that conflict with one's own has been a common tactic for eons, and it certainly isn't limited to creation or evolution. Can you say "globalwarming" boys & girls?
So, if we believe that angels hold airplanes aloft, that should be accepted because it doesn't fit our nice, neat package of physics.
And TToE is over 200 years old with millions of scientists and billions of data points across multiple equally aged disciplines.
AGW is a fad hypothesis that is just being used to generate money for weak "scientists" -- there is a HUGE population of true scientists who flatly say AGW is nonsense.
-
And what have you to say about those who are so absolutely convinced that the bibles story of creationism is right, that they deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other such animals that existed before humans? What do you have to say about those who are so wrapped up in their religious teachings that they view those of us who would see outside of it as "stupid"?
I could without a doubt gaurantee you that they far out number the people your complaining about Frank.
I don't think the 6 or 7 people who fit this description in any way outnumber those who are positive that the theory of evolution has explained God out of existence...and all school children in the US must be taught this "truth."
-
I don't think the 6 or 7 people who fit this description in any way outnumber those who are positive that the theory of evolution has explained God out existance...and all school children in the US must be taught this "truth."
That isn't what is taught. God is (theoretically) not allowed to be discussed in school in any non-philosophical context, since it violates the separatoon of Church and State.
-
Oh, Coach, you have been badly misled.
No one says evolution is absolutely right -- not in the way you mean. What they are saying is that evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the massive body of data and that no scientific alternatives have been found. It means that to not understand this means you are willingly blinding yourself to science. It is analogous to saying that since you can't see the wind it can't carry aircraft. You can BELIEVE that, but it doesn't change the underlying science.
And a "theory" is not a "grown up hypothesis." A theory is the highest level of understanding in science. "Just a theory" applies to non-scientific thought, never to science.
Stephen J. Gould put it best:
In this context, TToE is a scientific fact, if not a metaphysical one (which I believe YOU believe is being asserted when scientists say TToE is a "fact."
And no one is "jamming TToE down" anyone's throat, any more than they are "jamming chemistry" down their throats or "jamming physics" down their throats.
Physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology -- all these directly contravene literal Genesis and literal creation. How come we don't have people protesting these branches of science? Because creationism is selectively "enforced" -- the conclusions of these other sciences don't offend people. The conclusions of TToE does (some).
So if you believe that creationism is a competing theory to TToE then it is a competing theory to ALL science.
And that is withOUT bringing up what criteria an idea must meet before qualifying as a Scientific Theory.
Actually, there are questions within geology, for one. Specifically the idea that all those layers couldn't possibly have been formed during a year-long worldwide flood, but were rather formed over billions of years...especially in light of the very rapid formation of layers around volcanoes...and the very rapid erosion also evident. Then with astronomy, there are the questions of the origin of all that occupies space and the idea that everything came from a Big Bang that did NOT have supernatural force behind it, and the idea that the speed of light proves that the universe is ancient. The conflicts exist, and both sides have their answers to those conflicts. However, geologists and astronomers don't teach grade school children that their sciences "prove the non-existance of God." Yet.
-
So, if we believe that angels hold airplanes aloft, that should be accepted because it doesn't fit our nice, neat package of physics.
Huh?
And TToE is over 200 years old with millions of scientists and billions of data points across multiple equally aged disciplines.
Well, ain't that special. Creationism is thousands of years old, etc., etc., etc......
AGW is a fad hypothesis that is just being used to generate money for weak "scientists" -- there is a HUGE population of true scientists who flatly say AGW is nonsense.
Oh ok...guess there's never been any research money for evolution research, huh? Yeah, the money trough is bigger and older, that makes it completely different. Riiiight.
-
Actually, there are questions within geology, for one. Specifically the idea that all those layers couldn't possibly have been formed during a year-long worldwide flood, but were rather formed over billions of years...especially in light of the very rapid formation of layers around volcanoes...and the very rapid erosion also evident. Then with astronomy, there are the questions of the origin of all that occupies space and the idea that everything came from a Big Bang that did NOT have supernatural force behind it, and the idea that the speed of light proves that the universe is ancient. The conflicts exist, and both sides have their answers to those conflicts. However, geologists and astronomers don't teach grade school children that their sciences "prove the non-existance of God." Yet.
The fact that there are gaps in the specifics of some formations doesn't change the overall understanding of geological processes nor of the origins of the planet. And new findings in astronomy don't change how heavenly bodies were formed. The gaps in TToE do not undermine its overall theory.
And I defy you to show me one schoolbook that says "TToE proves the non-existence of God." TToE is silent on God, as is all accepted science.
-
That isn't what is taught. God is (theoretically) not allowed to be discussed in school in any non-philosophical context, since it violates the separatoon of Church and State.
Yes, the non-Constitutional separation that courts wrote into law by interpreting a private letter of Thomas Jefferson's...the same Thomas Jefferson who used his own money to purchase Bibles for the schools in his area.
And kids are most certainly taught that the theory of evolution explains the origins of life without any supernatural assistance. Just as they are specifically taught that they are descended from some half-ape creature instead of having an intentional purpose in their lives...they are worthless, merely the product of random chance and survival of the lucky. Every evolution textbook starts something like..."Billions of years ago, in the primordial ooze, life began"...yet another totally unproven theory taught as absolute to children who are not experienced enough to catch the lies. If you seriously don't believe what kids are taught, you need to go through some gradeschool and middle school science texts.
-
Huh?Well, ain't that special. Creationism is thousands of years old, etc., etc., etc......Oh ok...guess there's never been any research money for evolution research, huh? Yeah, the money trough is bigger and older, that makes it completely different. Riiiight.
You said that belief is as valid as science -- in fact, you repeat it here.
Let me put my analogy another way -- Physics, astronomy and geology ALL defy Genesis -- do you not "believe" in them? Do you tell kids that they "prove God doesn't exist?" Do you believe your layman's knowledge (or lack thereof) is a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge? Do you tell kids that creationism is a valid alternate theory to Astrophysics?
-
Yes, the non-Constitutional separation that courts wrote into law by interpreting a private letter of Thomas Jefferson's...the same Thomas Jefferson who used his own money to purchase Bibles for the schools in his area.
And kids are most certainly taught that the theory of evolution explains the origins of life without any supernatural assistance. Just as they are specifically taught that they are descended from some half-ape creature instead of having an intentional purpose in their lives...they are worthless, merely the product of random chance and survival of the lucky. Every evolution textbook starts something like..."Billions of years ago, in the primordial ooze, life began"...yet another totally unproven theory taught as absolute to children who are not experienced enough to catch the lies. If you seriously don't believe what kids are taught, you need to go through some gradeschool and middle school science texts.
Science, by definition, assumes no supernatural assistance. That is science, not TToE. TToE merely says that people evolved just like all other life on Earth. It is silent on the worthiness of the individual. YOU may read it that way, but nowhere does any textbook say "thus, there is no God." I continue to show me where a textbook says that IN THOSE WORDS. In fact, show me a textbook that mentions God at all.
And the primordial ooze is currently the best scientific explanation of the origins of life. Creationism is NOT a valid alternative to this explanation. Your inability to understand TToE does not undermine it, anymore than your probable inability to understand String Theory undermines that.
-
You said that belief is as valid as science -- in fact, you repeat it here.
Let me put my analogy another way -- Physics, astronomy and geology ALL defy Genesis -- do you not "believe" in them? Do you tell kids that they "prove God doesn't exist?"
No, plenty of others stand to do that.
Do you believe your layman's knowledge (or lack thereof) is a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge?
Who says it's not "true scientific knowledge"? You see...for you it's one or the other.
Do you tell kids that creationism is a valid alternate theory to Astrophysics?
Do you tell them it isn't?
-
My God is better than your God.
End of story.
:fuelfire:
Science vs. Religion threads are often interesting to watch.
-
I could without a doubt guarantee you that they far out number the people you're complaining about Frank.
I dunno, djones, sir.
It depends upon where one's at, I suppose.
If I am understanding "Christian fundamentalism" correctly, which I might or might not, be, Nebraska has never been fertile or productive land for "Christian fundamentalism."
(Nor Pennsylvania or New Jersey, where I've also lived.)
That might seem odd, given that Kansas is right underneath Nebraska, but Kansas is older, bigger, and has a wholly different sort of history and culture than we do. There is no more similiarity between Nebraska and Kansas, than there is between New Jersey and Oregon.
Actually, most of the time, I think it would be better for Nebraskans, if we had the same passion, the same intensity, as do Kansans.
There are of course tiny minuscule little "pockets" or enclaves of what I assume are "Christian fundamentalists," but such exists in Vermont, Florida, Nevada, &c., &c., &c., too.
I was probably at least 10 years old before I ever saw a real live bona fide Baptist (if a Baptist is to be considered a "Christian fundamentalist," something about which I am not exactly sure).
Nebraska has consistently been circa 33% Roman Catholic, 40% Lutheran (all three synods), and the remainder the "mainstream" (or used to be "mainstream," until they swung clear over to the left, to Mammon) Protestant denominations.
If I am understanding the definition of "Christian fundamentalists" correctly, yes, I've met one or another of them every so often, once in a while.
I must say that I have always found such people to be decent and civilized people, and in many cases brighter and more articulate than the common run of humanity.
I must also say none has ever tried to persuade me to adopt his point of view, to follow his path. On the Head of St. John the Baptist, I will swear that this has never occurred even a single time in this life.
On the other hand, one is besieged almost daily, almost hourly, by those who Hate God and religion and mankind, trying to jam their Hate and intolerance down one's throat. I've never met a Hater who didn't try to "convert" me.
Think about it. Think about television, for example. How many minutes of television can one watch, before things offensive to decent and civilized people pop up? Two minutes? Three minutes?
I have considerable problems accepting this apparently-popular notion that "Christian fundamentalists" are the "in your face" sort of people. This is a media-created impression, with no reflection in real life.
I imagine that in the 300 million of Americans, there are maybe six, maybe half a dozen, "fundies" as the primitives (and liberals and the news media) describe them--there's all sorts of people in the world, after all.
And then one also has to remember that to a primitive on Skins's island, a little old lady arising from bed inside a house six blocks down the street at 4:00 a.m. (while the primitive himself is still passed out in the basement) and kneels down to pray the rosary, behind the closed door of her house, and behind the closed bedroom door, is "getting into" the primitive's face, "shoving" her religion at him.
-
I have considerable problems accepting this apparently-popular notion that "Christian fundamentalists" are the "in your face" sort of people. This is a media-created impression, with no reflection in real life.
I imagine that in the 300 million of Americans, there are maybe six, maybe half a dozen, "fundies" as the primitives (and liberals and the news media) describe them--there's all sorts of people in the world, after all.
Get out a little more Frank. I can count off the top of my head more then "six" people that I know of who fit that category. And I can promise you I've been attacked more times because I'm an atheist, then I've ever attacked anyone for being a member of an organized religion.
-
Get out a little more Frank. I can count off the top of my head more then "six" people that I know of who fit that category. And I can promise you I've been attacked more times because I'm an atheist, then I've ever attacked anyone for being a member of an organized religion.
Well, one's mileage may vary; all I'm doing is describing my own life-experiences and observations, during a life when I've been out considerably.
-
>>Let me put my analogy another way -- Physics, astronomy and geology ALL defy Genesis -- do you not "believe" in them? Do you tell kids that they "prove God doesn't exist?"
No, plenty of others stand to do that.
So you think thank teaching science means you teach "God doesn't exist."
>>Do you believe your layman's knowledge (or lack thereof) is a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge?
Who says it's not "true scientific knowledge"? You see...for you it's one or the other.
It is. Science is science and is SILENT on faith. Faith is faith and can add no new knowledge or discovery to science.
Do you tell kids that creationism is a valid alternate theory to Astrophysics?
Do you tell them it isn't?
Yes. Because it isn't.
I am amazed you use a computer. I assume you think it runs on "holy food" or something.
Science is a very clearly document series of disciplines that uses a very rigorous set of standards and methods to expand true human knowledge about our physical Universe. Without these there would be no medicine, no electricity, no technology -- at best we would be stopped at the year 1000 BC.
Why do you want to end science? Putting faith as an integral scientific component is the same as saying "just pray for everything."
It is people like you who will make sure the next generation's great discoveries and scientific centers of gravity will be India and China.
Way to go.
-
Science, by definition, assumes no supernatural assistance. That is science, not TToE. TToE merely says that people evolved just like all other life on Earth. It is silent on the worthiness of the individual. YOU may read it that way, but nowhere does any textbook say "thus, there is no God." I continue to show me where a textbook says that IN THOSE WORDS. In fact, show me a textbook that mentions God at all.
And the primordial ooze is currently the best scientific explanation of the origins of life. Creationism is NOT a valid alternative to this explanation. Your inability to understand TToE does not undermine it, anymore than your probable inability to understand String Theory undermines that.
And in that assumption, with full emphasis on the word, teaches children that they are products of apes...that their ancestors began in swamps...that they have no specific purpose in life. All three of which are complete lies. Regardless of the evidence supporting that animals change, just as God intended, there is no solid proof that the changes were not rapid, and that the billions of years and primordial ooze are the only possible answer...they are assumed to be correct on today's interpretation of data, but they are taught to innocent children as absolute fact. Even if the teachers were honest enough to mention that the data is interpreted to "the best of man's knowledge today, but may be seen differently in time," they could undo much of the damage done by their insistence that today's view must be 100% correct.
The libraries of the world are full of scientific interpretations that were found to be wrong...how pompous of today's evo-fundies to be postive that they are the correct ones! I repeat, future scientists will look back on "all we know" now and laugh over our stupid and ignorant "knowledge." We know that. We DO that. Yet we never outgrow our foolish self-pride enough to teach kids the truth...this is what we think, but later evidence may change our thoughts...at least, the thoughts of those still honest enough to admit error.
And does that mean we should teach science as a field full of questions? Absolutely!! We have hundreds of years of proof that shows that science constantly changes. How dare we teach kids that we have all the answers when what we have are best-guesses that will definitely change eventually!
-
Get out a little more Frank. I can count off the top of my head more then "six" people that I know of who fit that category. And I can promise you I've been attacked more times because I'm an atheist, then I've ever attacked anyone for being a member of an organized religion.
You may be an atheist but God loves you anyway. He loves all of his children: even those that do not believe in him.
-
It is people like you who will make sure the next generation's great discoveries and scientific centers of gravity will be India and China.
Way to go.
Teaching our kids that we "know" things when, in truth, we merely assume that knowledge, will not go a long way toward improving our science discoveries.
-
Teaching our kids that we "know" things when, in truth, we merely assume that knowledge, will not go a long way toward improving our science discoveries.
All knowledge is assumption. Please see the definition of a "scientific fact" upthread.
We KNOW Gravity is a Force and it is measurable at an average of 98 ft/sec2 We KNOW that it is not pushed down by angels.
If someone BELIEVES Gravity is because Angels push things down, that is not only unhelpful but detrimental. And suggesting that Creationism is equal to TToE is the same thing.
Even IF "Goddidit" was true, how would we put that information to work? In what mechinism would we build God's Hand? How would we be sure it would behave the same way every time?
God gave us a Universe WITH CONSISTENT AND APPLICABLE RULES. It is one of His greatest gifts, second only to the ability he gave Man to discern, discover and use these rules.
And, Coach, if you are still following, this isn't trivial. Harnessing the Universe, which begins by exploring its rules, is one of the highest callings that God calls us to.
-
Proponents of evolution, who might or might not be correct, allege themselves to be "enlightened rational" people, when in fact they make those who advocate the other two major theories (creationism and aliens-from-outer-space-ism) look eminently reasonable in comparison.
I agree.
School vouchers are the answer. If you want your child taught creationism in science class, and someone else doesn't, then you should be able to place your child in the class you desire and they in the one they desire. As long as everyone is taught the core of the material, it shouldn't be a problem. The only problem will come from those who don't believe it should be taught as a matter of "principle," but since they can place their children in a class that doesn't teach it, they have no reason to infringe upon those who wish it to be taught.
.
-
You may be an atheist but God loves you anyway. He loves all of his children: even those that do not believe in him.
I suppose one's encounter with both sorts of people, the so-called "Christian fundamentalists" and those who deny the existence of God, depends upon one's manner.
I rather suspect no one has ever tried to "convert" me (although surely "Christian fundamentalists," if I am understanding the term correctly, must find things they think in error, in my own religion) because perhaps maybe possibly the aura of confidence in my manner. I know what I think, I know what I believe.
In the case of djones, a very worthwhile and exceptional member, a great member, here (at least to me), I'm assuming that maybe because he's still young and the family complicates things (a problem I wouldn't be able to deal with successfully myself, as I didn't deal with it effectively when I was young and the older siblings still alive), "Christian fundamentalists" might perceive him as more pliable, more flexible.
That of course changes over time.
-
And in that assumption, with full emphasis on the word, teaches children that they are products of apes...that their ancestors began in swamps...that they have no specific purpose in life. All three of which are complete lies.
All humans are descended from a primate-like creature. The current theories are that life was sparked in a primordial ooze. How do those have anything to do with an individual's purpose in life? You need to show me WHERE IN A SPECIFIC TEXT IT SAYS THE LATTER. I have yet for you to show me where any text links evolution to spiritual purpose. Not your interpetation -- show me where it is stated specifically. I grew up understanding TToE -- and I always felt I was a unique and special entity in the Universe, imbued with grace from God and demanded by Him to find my purpose in life.
Regardless of the evidence supporting that animals change, just as God intended, there is no solid proof that the changes were not rapid, and that the billions of years and primordial ooze are the only possible answer...they are assumed to be correct on today's interpretation of data, but they are taught to innocent children as absolute fact. Even if the teachers were honest enough to mention that the data is interpreted to "the best of man's knowledge today, but may be seen differently in time," they could undo much of the damage done by their insistence that today's view must be 100% correct.
The fact you don't understand the stochastic nature of TToE undermines it not a whit. Again, I point you to the definition of a scientific fact upthread. If you look at something and then look away, can you be 100% sure it is still there? Your attempt at philosophizing the nature of reality and truth is fun, if sophomoric. And the underlying fundamentals of TToE are unlikely to be changed, anymore than the measurementof the speed of light.
The libraries of the world are full of scientific interpretations that were found to be wrong...how pompous of today's evo-fundies to be postive that they are the correct ones! I repeat, future scientists will look back on "all we know" now and laugh over our stupid and ignorant "knowledge." We know that. We DO that. Yet we never outgrow our foolish self-pride enough to teach kids the truth...this is what we think, but later evidence may change our thoughts...at least, the thoughts of those still honest enough to admit error.
Einstein's theory replaced Newtons -- yet the apples still fall. The truth is that as science progresses and more data are amassed, evaluated and tested using the Scientific Method, aspects are discarded and/or adjusted as the evidence leads. Under no circumstance will science ever allow a supernatural process in as a basis for anything.
And does that mean we should teach science as a field full of questions? Absolutely!! We have hundreds of years of proof that shows that science constantly changes. How dare we teach kids that we have all the answers when what we have are best-guesses that will definitely change eventually!
Sure, you should. But it should be clear that scientific questions can only have scientific answers.
-
I agree.
School vouchers are the answer. If you want your child taught creationism in science class, and someone else doesn't, then you should be able to place your child in the class you desire and they in the one they desire. As long as everyone is taught the core of the material, it shouldn't be a problem. The only problem will come from those who don't believe it should be taught as a matter of "principle," but since they can place their children in a class that doesn't teach it, they have no reason to infringe upon those who wish it to be taught.
.
I believe in Vouchers as a great idea. The flip side of this argument is that many of today's teachers are STUPID and UNEDUCATED in all endeavors: They can't spell, they don't know grammar, they don't teach true classic literature, few can even perform fundamental calculations on the even numbered problems in their own texts.
And they DO teach TToE like they would a cake mix -- they read it without fielding or understanding the nature of science.
Mrs. S. is not totally out in left field. An instructor with a modicum of science training would explain about the Scientific Method and how it allows science to progress by testing and re-testing scientific axioms and that all are up for rework at any given moment.
-
School vouchers are the answer. If you want your child taught creationism in science class, and someone else doesn't, then you should be able to place your child in the class you desire and they in the one they desire. As long as everyone is taught the core of the material, it shouldn't be a problem. The only problem will come from those who don't believe it should be taught as a matter of "principle," but since they can place their children in a class that doesn't teach it, they have no reason to infringe upon those who wish it to be taught.
That can however create financial haemorrhage in areas sparsely populated, where there's but one single school for five or six counties.
I've never had a problem with the teaching of evolution, but I do think science teachers should be required to say two things, when beginning the subect:
(a) "This is a class in evolution, where the theory of evolution is described, analyzed, and discussed. The theory of evolution is but one of many theories about the origins of mankind, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about the origins of mankind."
And
(b) "Since this is a class strictly about the theory of evolution, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to the theory of evolution."
The deal is, the Evolution Establishment would willingly say (b), but no way in Hell would they say (a); there's no way they're going to admit other theories deserve the same consideration and credibility as their theory.
-
That can however create financial haemorrhage in areas sparsely populated, where there's but one single school for five or six counties.
I've never had a problem with the teaching of evolution, but I do think science teachers should be required to say two things, when beginning the subect:
(a) "This is a class in evolution, where the theory of evolution is described, analyzed, and discussed. The theory of evolution is but one of many theories about the origins of mankind, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about the origins of mankind."
And
(b) "Since this is a class strictly about the theory of evolution, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to the theory of evolution."
The deal is, the Evolution Establishment would willingly say (b), but no way in Hell would they say (a); there's no way they're going to admit other theories deserve the same consideration and credibility as their theory.
Lets think that through and try it on for size, Coach:
(a) "This is a class in physics, where physics is described, analyzed, and discussed. Physics is but one of many theories about the the nature of matter and time, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about matter and time."
And
(b) "Since this is a class strictly about chemistry, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to chemistry."
That is the exact analogy, my friend.
-
Lets think that through and try it on for size, Coach:
(a) "This is a class in physics, where physics is described, analyzed, and discussed. Physics is but one of many theories about the the nature of matter and time, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about matter and time."
And
(b) "Since this is a class strictly about chemistry, and no other theories, all discussion and dispute should be limited strictly to chemistry."
That is the exact analogy, my friend.
Of course.
(b) is necessary because in a class discussion on one thing, the discussion can get sidetracked or even derailed. Sort of like starting a history lesson about the Industrial Revolution, and the subject gets tied up with 19th-century urban sociology (a real-life example, and franksolich was the guilty person).
Teachers of history aren't generally experts on sociology, and besides, it's a history class. A teacher of evolution isn't usually educated and knowledgeable about other theories of the origins of mankind, and so if things get derailed, it's a real mess, and a lot of exasperation.
And as for (a), the preceding one, absolutely nothing wrong with it. There are people who disagree with physics (not me, any more than I disagree with evolution), and they just may be right.
The purpose of education is to broaden one, not to narrow one.
-
Of course.
(b) is necessary because in a class discussion on one thing, the discussion can get sidetracked or even derailed. Sort of like starting a history lesson about the Industrial Revolution, and the subject gets tied up with 19th-century urban sociology (a real-life example, and franksolich was the guilty person).
Teachers of history aren't generally experts on sociology, and besides, it's a history class. A teacher of evolution isn't usually educated and knowledgeable about other theories of the origins of mankind, and so if things get derailed, it's a real mess, and a lot of exasperation.
And as for (a), the preceding one, absolutely nothing wrong with it. There are people who disagree with physics (not me, any more than I disagree with evolution), and they just may be right.
The purpose of education is to broaden one, not to narrow one.
But it is NOT to inculcate the idea that all ideas are equal.
There is serious discipline behind what we call science, Coach. To suggest it is malleable is like saying that Conservatism is fully malleable.
And people who disagree with Physics are, by definition, required to provide an alternative theory.
-
(a) "This is a class in evolution, where the theory of evolution is described, analyzed, and discussed. The theory of evolution is but one of many theories about the origins of mankind, and if one thinks it in error, one is encouraged to explore all the other theories about the origins of mankind."
I am aware of a science teacher in this area who does something almost similar to that. When he gets to the evolution discussion, he points out that it's a theory, that it has many holes, and that it's only to be taken as a possible explanation, and that it's not necessarily the truth.
.
-
I am aware of a science teacher in this area who does something almost similar to that. When he gets to the evolution discussion, he points out that it's a theory, that it has many holes, and that it's only to be taken as a possible explanation, and that it's not necessarily the truth.
.
That teacher is teaching theology, not science. Unless he says the same for gravity, astronomy and other science topics -- which just makes him an idiot.
-
That teacher is teaching theology, not science. UNless he says the same for gravity, astronomy and other science topics.
That makes no sense. Just because "science" claims evolution took place doesn't mean that it did. When you're dealing with God, you're dealing with the supernatural, something science doesn't take into account but which otherwise might be an explanation.
Besides, he has a Phd in science, and he's a Christian, so I trust him. I didn't say he wasn't teaching the material, only that he makes it clear that just because science claims it to be a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is that way. Science can't explain Jesus raising Lazarus after he had been dead for 4 days, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
.
-
So you think thank teaching science means you teach "God doesn't exist."
You sure do liike putting words in other peoples' mouths.
It is. Science is science and is SILENT on faith. Faith is faith and can add no new knowledge or discovery to science.Yes. Because it isn't.
Your faith is in science.
I am amazed you use a computer. I assume you think it runs on "holy food" or something.
Once again you express your ignorance of faith. That's really sad.
Science is a very clearly document series of disciplines that uses a very rigorous set of standards and methods to expand true human knowledge about our physical Universe. Without these there would be no medicine, no electricity, no technology -- at best we would be stopped at the year 1000 BC.
So you really do worshp science.
Why do you want to end science?
Never said that. There you go again...making statements for others.
Putting faith as an integral scientific component is the same as saying "just pray for everything."
...and yet you have a profound faith in science, but cannot see the connection between them.
It is people like you who will make sure the next generation's great discoveries and scientific centers of gravity will be India and China.
Way to go.
That's just babble & nonsense. Most unfortunate.
-
We KNOW Gravity is a Force and it is measurable at an average of 98 ft/sec2 We KNOW that it is not pushed down by angels.
Ok, science boy...Gravity is not a force. It's an acceleration. Didja miss that physics class?
You can describe gravity all day long. You can tell us what it does and how to measure it. You can tell us how it works, but you can't tell us why. You can try, but to each answer, we can still ask why. Eventually the answer will be "I don't know".
-
That teacher is teaching theology, not science. Unless he says the same for gravity, astronomy and other science topics -- which just makes him an idiot.
Actually, I think it would be good--and professional--for teachers of a subject to, at the start, frankly admit, that what they are about to teach is not necessarily the final answer, the final Truth.
"To be a good teacher, one must first be humble."
I used to think that above quote was from Albert Einstein, but since figured out it was from an eastern European Yiddish folk-tale, but it pretty much describes Albert Einstein anyway.
The primitives on Skins's island the other week had a long discussion, squibble-squabbling around a particular bonfire, at the Biblical phrase, "fear of God [or the Lord] is the beginning of wisdom."
We all know how amusing the primitives are, when they try to "explain" Christianity (or any other religion) to us; in fact, probably about one-tenth of the threads in the DUmpster forum here involve such cases, because the primitives are so funny, and so willfully ignorant and voluntarily stupid.
In this case, the primitives conveniently forgot that the word "fear" in 1608 meant something different than what the word "fear" means today in 2008.
It meant in 1608, awe and respect and acknowledgement, not what it means today.
"To be a good teacher, one must first be humble."
In college, I had a rabid hard-core Marxist-Leninist teacher of Elizabethan drama, a visiting professor from Yale. He seemed old to me, but probably about the time he was only circa 40 years old.
Despite his absurd political ideology, he was a great teacher, and as the year went on, a great friend. I think it had to do with his attitude, "This is what I know, and this is what is generally accepted [about Elizabethan drama], but no one person, no one group of people, knows all, and so I, or we, just may be wrong."
A great teacher.
The Evolution Establishment is, fundamentally, viciously liberal, and I'm surprised they don't pay more attention to one of their icons, Mao Tse-tung who, in the mid-1950s, declared "Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend."
Of course, Mao Tse-tung, being a liberal and a socialist, didn't really mean all these pretty words, but they were pretty words.
I on the other hand mean it, and encourage it in any way I possibly can; since no human knows all, or can even know all, for the maximum possible human enlightment, it's necessary to include, and consider, as many points of view as possible.
I've already said here, and elsewhere, that I have no problems with the theory of evolution; it all makes sense to me (the point being that I do have problems with proponents, advocates, propagandists, of the theory of evolution, who do more harm than good to their cause by their strident narrow-mindedness).
However, I'm always uncomfortably aware that many things that "made sense" to me in the past, have since been proven wrong.
It's okay to be 90% certain about something, but to be 100% certain about something is sheer folly.
-
Ok, science boy...Gravity is not a force. It's an acceleration. Didja miss that physics class?
Gravity is a Force (and it is 92 m/s2 or 32 f/s2 -- I mistyped) F=ma. That is why it is squared.
The fact that knowledge is not absolute is an interesting questions for drunk sophomores to pore over in the dorm room. In real life, there are things we know -- scientific facts. TToE is one of those things and is as well described as physics, chemistry, astronomy and all other sciences.
-
That makes no sense. Just because "science" claims evolution took place doesn't mean that it did. When you're dealing with God, you're dealing with the supernatural, something science doesn't take into account but which otherwise might be an explanation.
You deal with God in theology or philosophy, not science clas
Besides, he has a Phd in science, and he's a Christian, so I trust him. I didn't say he wasn't teaching the material, only that he makes it clear that just because science claims it to be a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is that way. Science can't explain Jesus raising Lazarus after he had been dead for 4 days, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
.
TToE doesn't address whether Jesus existed and performed His Miracles or not. As I keep pointing out, science is silent on God and Jesus.
-
You sure do liike putting words in other peoples' mouths.Your faith is in science.Once again you express your ignorance of faith. That's really sad.So you really do worshp science.Never said that. There you go again...making statements for others....and yet you have a profound faith in science, but cannot see the connection between them.That's just babble & nonsense. Most unfortunate.
I give you one more chance to make some sense of your posts:
Do you understand science? Do you understand physics? Do you understand chemistry? TToE is no different.
I understand science. I have faith in God. God gave us the ability to explore and understand His Universe. To eschew that in favor of a simplistic answer is to spit in His face.
-
I understand science. I have faith in God. God gave us the ability to explore and understand His Universe. To eschew that in favor of a simplistic answer is to spit in His face.
...yet that is exactly what you do.
PROV 19:3 The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.
2 TIM 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 PETER 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
***
Main Entry: acceleration of gravity
Date: circa 1889
: the acceleration of a body in free fall under the influence of earth's gravity expressed as the rate of increase of velocity per unit of time and assigned the standard value of 980.665 centimeters per second per second —called also g
Your definition comes from a static model. Mine does not.
-
...yet that is exactly what you do.
PROV 19:3 The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.
2 TIM 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 PETER 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Those quotes are interesting but do not answer the question I asked of you.
***
Main Entry: acceleration of gravity
Date: circa 1889
: the acceleration of a body in free fall under the influence of earth's gravity expressed as the rate of increase of velocity per unit of time and assigned the standard value of 980.665 centimeters per second per second —called also g
Your definition comes from a static model. Mine does not.
I stand corrected -- Gravity ON EARTH is a Force.
-
You deal with God in theology or philosophy, not science clas
He doesn't mention God, he simply points out that just because science claims that humans came from slimey algae doesn't mean that's how it really happened and they shouldn't feel compelled to beleive it. That doesn't diminish at all the classroom material.
This isn't a topic of science like other topics, it's one that crosses into religious beliefs of others. If a teacher can make the student, especially 14 and 15 year olds, feel more comfortable in the classroom that he isn't going to somehow force the student to disregard his religious beliefs, then that makes for a better learning environment. Doesn't mean he doesn't teach the material the way the textbook presents it.
.
-
He doesn't mention God, he simply points out that just because science claims that humans came from slimey algae doesn't mean that's how it really happened and they shouldn't feel compelled to beleive it. That doesn't diminish at all the classroom material.
This isn't a topic of science like other topics, it's one that crosses into religious beliefs of others. If a teacher can make the student, especially 14 and 15 year olds, feel more comfortable in the classroom that he isn't going to somehow force the student to disregard his religious beliefs, then that makes for a better learning environment. Doesn't mean he doesn't teach the material the way the textbook presents it.
.
And I ask again, if someone believes that angels make the wind blow does that mean we preface every physics class with the same preamble? TToE is no different than any other science topic -- it is just one where people don't like the implications.
-
And I ask again, if someone believes that angels make the wind blow does that mean we preface every physics class with the same preamble?
Show me where there's people who believe that angels make the wind blow. You see, that's not an issue. There are people, however, who believe the Bible when it says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, and since I believe in God I'm one of them.
.
-
How long is a "day" to God? A single revolution of the Earth? The Galexy? The Universe? The Creator is not obliged to give us this information, if we want to know, exactly, we are obliged to figure it out.
-
How long is a "day" to God? A single revolution of the Earth? The Galexy? The Universe? The Creator is not obliged to give us this information, if we want to know, exactly, we are obliged to figure it out.
I did a study on that, and I encourage anyone else to do the same. I found that the Hebrew word for "day" in the verses in Genesis is the same word used to denote a normal 24 hour day in the rest of the OT.
Given I believe the scriptures when it says that God is all-powerful, then God creating all things in six 24 hour days doesn't bother me. He could have done it all in a snap if He wanted to.
Personally, I believe when God created the earth it was already aged; it would have had to have been to sustain life in the days immediately following creation. For example, God created Adam on the 6th day. On the 7th day, did Adam look like he was one day old as we know one day old? Or did he appear to be, let's say, 20 years old? IOW, Adam appeared older than he actually was.
The study of the earth is fascinating to me, but in the greater picture it doesn't effect me one way or the other. If God had wanted us to know every detail of creation, He would have spelled out every detail. He didn't. That tells me He provided enough info for us to believe He is who He says He is. It also tells me that it isn't that important, not compared to the reason we are here, which He spells out in detail in the rest of the scriptures.
.
-
So...you think the Creator engages in base deception? I don't. Ithink that 4000 years ago those writing Genesis might have misunderstood time as we know it to be.
-
So...you think the Creator engages in base deception? I don't. Ithink that 4000 years ago those writing Genesis might have misunderstood time as we know it to be.
Now, I have to be careful how I say this; I don't think this is what happened, but I think this is something that could have happened.
The first sin was, of course, pride; the idea that man could be God, knowing and understanding as much as God.
God, being the First Cause of all things, and God being All-Powerful, could have created, instantaneously, in a split-second, a world in which scientific evidence would seem, or actually even be, millions of years old.
Instant 4,000,000-year-old rocks and stuff.
So as to befuddle the proud and the arrogant.
God after all does have a sense of humor.
-
God, being the First Cause of all things, and God being All-Powerful, could have created, instantaneously, in a split-second, a world in which scientific evidence would seem, or actually even be, millions of years old.
Instant 4,000,000-year-old rocks and stuff.
So as to befuddle the proud and the arrogant.
Or dinosaurs. If God left too many clues what would be the point in faith?
-
So...you think the Creator engages in base deception? I don't. Ithink that 4000 years ago those writing Genesis might have misunderstood time as we know it to be.
No, I don't believe he engaged in deception. If indeed He did create an aged earth, then it was for a purpose. If mankind misuses or misintreprets that purpose, then that's not God's fault.
As far as the writers of the Bible, I believe them all to be inspired of God. IOW the things they wrote were exactly what God wanted them to write. So when you say people 4000 years ago "might have misunderstood time as we know it to be," I know the point you're making. But since I believe the writings to be "God Breathed," then to me it would be saying that God misunderstood time as we know it, and that the inspired writers wrote inaccurately about the creation, which I don't believe.
For the record, I'm not interested into a deep discussion of this unless someone wants to do it via PM. This is the Religion Section, and as such I'm not interested into getting into a tussle where 20 people are reading and something is misunderstood or taken the wrong way and feelings get hurt, which likely wouldn't happen, but I'd rather not take the chance.
.
-
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=woe+to+ye+lawyers&do=Search
http://www.teslasociety.com/einstein.htm
this does it for me.
-
Or dinosaurs. If God left too many clues what would be the point in faith?
He (God) had no problem with faith during the time covered in the Old Testament. He talked to everyone, did amazing acts, destroyed civilizations, etc... Yet all of a sudden (once the religions start to become organized) it all shifts to faith.
During a time when humanity didn't number a fraction of what it was, he made himself known to everyone time and time again, yet during a time when the world is exploding with humans, and religions number more then any of us know, with countless people not adhering to the "one true faith", it is all supposed to be based off of faith and word passed down by one man 2,000 years ago.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Show me where there's people who believe that angels make the wind blow. You see, that's not an issue.
How about those who believe the world was created by a Great Bear? Or those who believe in a pantheon? Those who believe that demigods created the world and guide the weather? Who gets to judge which belief is better? You?
Those who put belief over knowledge are doing the same thing. The idea that "belief" trumps the scientific method is the way to anarchy and the supression of knowledge -- certainly the end of knowledge expansion.
There are people, however, who believe the Bible when it says God created the heavens and earth in 6 days, and since I believe in God I'm one of them..
So how old is the Earth?
-
Those who put belief over knowledge.....
There is nothing in this time and place that can be identified as concrete ultimate final truth, or knowledge.
We believe what we see (or hear or touch or whatever), but given that understanding the Infinite (God, reality, truth) is impossible for finite and limited humans--or even the amassed cerebral capacity of all humans who exist, and have existed--our perceptions of things are limited, and probably even distorted.
I believe in evolution--as said many times before, it all makes sense to me--but it's a belief, not a certainty. I believe that when I walk on the sidewalk, one leg will move ahead of the other. But it's a belief, not a certainty. I believe the sun will rise from the east in the morning, as it has without exception since the beginning of time, but it's a belief, not an absolute final certainty.
-
There is nothing in this time and place that can be identified as concrete ultimate final truth, or knowledge.
We believe what we see (or hear or touch or whatever), but given that understanding the Infinite (God, reality, truth) is impossible for finite and limited humans--or even the amassed cerebral capacity of all humans who exist, and have existed--our perceptions of things are limited, and probably even distorted.
I believe in evolution--as said many times before, it all makes sense to me--but it's a belief, not a certainty. I believe that when I walk on the sidewalk, one leg will move ahead of the other. But it's a belief, not a certainty. I believe the sun will rise from the east in the morning, as it has without exception since the beginning of time, but it's a belief, not an absolute final certainty.
Coach, the nature of knowledge and belief is interesting, but doesn't help. As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, "believing" in TToE is like "believing" in Gravity. It just is, irrespective of the belief system of the observer.
If you want to teach kids to doubt everything, fine. To point out a scientific fact as a specific something to doubt -- not so good.
-
If you want to teach kids to doubt everything, fine. To point out a scientific fact as a specific something to doubt -- not so good.
We're having a, uh, communication problem here.
You say "scientific fact" as if it's real.
I say "scientific fact" is a belief, and not necessarily real.
-
We're having a, uh, communication problem here.
You say "scientific fact" as if it's real.
I say "scientific fact" is a belief, and not necessarily real.
As long as you treat all scientific facts the same and don't single any out for special mistreatment.
-
As long as you treat all scientific facts the same and don't single any out for special mistreatment.
Of course all "scientific facts" should be subjected to vigorous and constant question.
The problem is that when one accepts something as the "final truth," he boxes himself in, in his way of thinking. He can't see things beyond standard textbook definitions.
I recently read something that illustrates this; the diaries of an Englishwoman who was a nurse in the Russian army in 1915.
Most of us have at least a faint idea of conditions in the Russian army at the time; underfed, underarmed, badly officered, notoriously corrupt, and the Austro-Hungarian army constantly shoving them back, back, back (in 1915).
The nurse recorded a rather lengthy description of when the medical personnel, such as it was, was confronted with thousands of bleeding men, thousands of men in pain and agony.
The physicians said, "We can't do anything; we've got no bandages for bleeding, no morphine for pain."
I suppose we would all agree that bandages are best for controlling bleeding, and morphine is best for subduing pain.
But what if one has no bandages, no morphine?
Someone with a rigid narrow-minded way of thinking would then say, "Well, it's very sad, and it's all too bad, but these guys are just going to have lay down and die."
Because they can't possibly conceive of any solution, other than the standard textbook solution.
But as the nurse related in meticulous detail, there appeared at the field-hospital a tall, gaunt Russian Orthodox monk, who went among the wounded, using.....hypnosis.
He of course couldn't restore a missing limb, but his hypnosis appeared to staunch bleeding and alleviate pain. Hypnosis of course wasn't as good as bandages and morphine, but it was something, when the other choice was nothing.
It would never occur to a "scientific" physician that anything short of bandages and morphine would do any good; that there existed alternatives.
It's always healthy to think outside the box, even if one runs the risk of being thought of as iconoclastic.
-
Of course all "scientific facts" should be subjected to vigorous and constant question.
The problem is that when one accepts something as the "final truth," he boxes himself in, in his way of thinking. He can't see things beyond standard textbook definitions.
I recently read something that illustrates this; the diaries of an Englishwoman who was a nurse in the Russian army in 1915.
Most of us have at least a faint idea of conditions in the Russian army at the time; underfed, underarmed, badly officered, notoriously corrupt, and the Austro-Hungarian army constantly shoving them back, back, back (in 1915).
The nurse recorded a rather lengthy description of when the medical personnel, such as it was, was confronted with thousands of bleeding men, thousands of men in pain and agony.
The physicians said, "We can't do anything; we've got no bandages for bleeding, no morphine for pain."
I suppose we would all agree that bandages are best for controlling bleeding, and morphine is best for subduing pain.
But what if one has no bandages, no morphine?
Someone with a rigid narrow-minded way of thinking would then say, "Well, it's very sad, and it's all too bad, but these guys are just going to have lay down and die."
Because they can't possibly conceive of any solution, other than the standard textbook solution.
But as the nurse related in meticulous detail, there appeared at the field-hospital a tall, gaunt Russian Orthodox monk, who went among the wounded, using.....hypnosis.
He of course couldn't restore a missing limb, but his hypnosis appeared to staunch bleeding and alleviate pain. Hypnosis of course wasn't as good as bandages and morphine, but it was something, when the other choice was nothing.
It would never occur to a "scientific" physician that anything short of bandages and morphine would do any good; that there existed alternatives.
It's always healthy to think outside the box, even if one runs the risk of being thought of as iconoclastic.
Again, great philosophical points. Don't let the term "scientific fact" throw you -- I again point you to my upthread definition. ALL scientific axioms are up for grabs at all times.
But if you don't have those axioms/facts you can't build.
-
But if you don't have those axioms/facts you can't build.
Ah, but one can build on faith alone.
My whole life, and I'm sure the lives of everybody else, are perfect examples of this.
-
He (God) had no problem with faith during the time covered in the Old Testament. He talked to everyone, did amazing acts, destroyed civilizations, etc... Yet all of a sudden (once the religions start to become organized) it all shifts to faith.
During a time when humanity didn't number a fraction of what it was, he made himself known to everyone time and time again, yet during a time when the world is exploding with humans, and religions number more then any of us know, with countless people not adhering to the "one true faith", it is all supposed to be based off of faith and word passed down by one man 2,000 years ago.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
I'm not going to get back into much of this, I've seen these arguments go for hundreds of posts. But your point, djones, is somewhat off. During much of the Old Testament, God made Himself known to the Children of Israel, though we see that some others also believed, like Rahab. Just as now, those who chose to believe could "find" Him, but those that chose to look away were allowed to reject Him.
Since the Resurrection and Pentecost, those that choose to believe have the Holy Spirit. There is quite a bit more to it than faith and the word of one man. If it doesn't make sense to you, then you haven't looked into it enough.
-
How long is a "day" to God? A single revolution of the Earth? The Galexy? The Universe? The Creator is not obliged to give us this information, if we want to know, exactly, we are obliged to figure it out.
I see no reason to believe that God is bound by our concept of time. God is timeless. I do laugh though, when I hear people say they believe God created everything, but he couldn't possibly have done it in six days. :mental:
-
How about those who believe the world was created by a Great Bear? Or those who believe in a pantheon? Those who believe that demigods created the world and guide the weather? Who gets to judge which belief is better? You?
Tell you what, if there's enough people who believe that demigods created the world to guide the weather, we'll deal with it at that time. Until then, there are a overwhelming number who believe God created the universe, and that is the matter at hand.
As far as belief over knowledge, if the question is do I believe God when His scriptures say he created the universe in 6 days or do I believe science when it says it happened over millions of years, that's easy to answer. I'll take God's Word over science any day. If I were to take science over God, and knowing what I know without question to be the truth, I'd be just as well off not even bother believing in God at all, because the end result of where I would spend eternity would be the same place. I might as well eat, drink, and be merry and enjoy it while it lasts since things wouldn't be so great where I'd end up.
.
-
luh-nut, I go back on my word:
http://www.gummy-stuff.org/M-theory.htm
:evillaugh:
-
As long as you treat all scientific facts the same and don't single any out for special mistreatment.
"Scientific fact" is a moving target that represents the best description of what we can prove at a given time. At one point, it was "proven" that a top-fuel dragster was limited to a certain best time. Then the dragsters started beating that time. The engineers and scientists scratched their heads, and realized that they should have used shear friction as opposed to boundary friction, as the tire was actually sticking to the road, and shearing itself off as it spun. (My terms may not be exact; I'm not an engineer.) So the "scientific fact" of the day changed. The vast majority of scientific facts have changed over time as science got better.
As for evolution, it's a good theory that explains just about everything. I believe in it. Why is it so difficult for some folks to let it be challenged? If the evolutionists are right (and I think they are), then science will prove them right.
(BTW, I do believe in God as the prime mover. I also think He's clever enough that He won't leave any fingerprints behind. After all, if you had proof, then belief wouldn't really require any faith, would it?)
-
"Scientific fact" is a moving target that represents the best description of what we can prove at a given time. At one point, it was "proven" that a top-fuel dragster was limited to a certain best time. Then the dragsters started beating that time. The engineers and scientists scratched their heads, and realized that they should have used shear friction as opposed to boundary friction, as the tire was actually sticking to the road, and shearing itself off as it spun. (My terms may not be exact; I'm not an engineer.) So the "scientific fact" of the day changed. The vast majority of scientific facts have changed over time as science got better.
As for evolution, it's a good theory that explains just about everything. I believe in it. Why is it so difficult for some folks to let it be challenged? If the evolutionists are right (and I think they are), then science will prove them right.
(BTW, I do believe in God as the prime mover. I also think He's clever enough that He won't leave any fingerprints behind. After all, if you had proof, then belief wouldn't really require any faith, would it?)
Of course, the Holy Spirit does provide proof. :-)
-
Tell you what, if there's enough people who believe that demigods created the world to guide the weather, we'll deal with it at that time. Until then, there are a overwhelming number who believe God created the universe, and that is the matter at hand.
Ah, so your concept of science is that the majority belief rules. The fact that over a BILLION people believe in Demigods means you lose.
As far as belief over knowledge, if the question is do I believe God when His scriptures say he created the universe in 6 days or do I believe science when it says it happened over millions of years, that's easy to answer. I'll take God's Word over science any day. If I were to take science over God, and knowing what I know without question to be the truth, I'd be just as well off not even bother believing in God at all, because the end result of where I would spend eternity would be the same place. I might as well eat, drink, and be merry and enjoy it while it lasts since things wouldn't be so great where I'd end up.
.
You speak and read Aramaic and Greek? Who knew?
Which Genesis story do you believe? You know they directly conflict, right?
-
Of course, the Holy Spirit does provide proof. :-)
The Holy Spirit provides faith.
-
The Holy Spirit provides faith.
Not really. You can have faith in all kinds of things...for example, you have faith in scientific discoveries. The Holy Spirit provides a certainty that is more than just faith.
-
Which Genesis story do you believe? You know they directly conflict, right?
No, they don't.
-
Not really. You can have faith in all kinds of things...for example, you have faith in scientific discoveries. The Holy Spirit provides a certainty that is more than just faith.
I have knowledge of science. I have faith in God.
And if you don't "believe in" science, you really shouldn't be using it -- like them thar evil computers.
-
No, they don't.
They most certainly do. Compare Genesis I to Genesis II.
And the version of the Old Testament the Jews use conflicts with the version most Christians use.
And I would say .000001% of all Christians have read the "original" in its original language. And that figure hits 0% here.
-
They most certainly do. Compare Genesis I to Genesis II.
And the version of the Old Testament the Jews use conflicts with the version most Christians use.
And I would say .000001% of all Christians have read the "original" in its original language. And that figure hits 0% here.
Telling the same story from a different angle, with a different emphasis, is not a conflict.
I have no idea what percentage of Christians have learned Hebrew, but I do know that it's taught in most seminaries, and many Christian schools give courses. My husband and step-daughters have all had some instruction in the language. Biblical translators know it very well. The most accurate translation is the NASB, which is written at a college-age reading level for the greatest accuracy and the best possible understanding. It is likely to be far more helpful to read the best possible translation in the language you understand than to try to stumble through a language you don't know well. (Probably the reason the apostles all spoke in "each person's native language" on Pentecost, huh?) Having done some translating in both Spanish and Russian, I prefer to read the translation done by the person who KNOWS the language rather than guessing through it myself. It's like the way we can study a wonderful scientific discovery made by someone in Japan without having to learn to read and understand Japanese first.
-
I have knowledge of science. I have faith in God.
And if you don't "believe in" science, you really shouldn't be using it -- like them thar evil computers.
Oh, I believe in science. I believe in electronics, also. I just don't believe that either science or electronics are always perfect. I believe science has made many wonderful discoveries. As always, the greatest downfall is that people believe that today's science is mostly all correct. In a couple decades, we'll know better. In a couple hundred years, we'll look as dumb as the witch-hunters. Having a knowledge of today's science is great. Believing that today's science knows more than God...not so great.
-
Telling the same story from a different angle, with a different emphasis, is not a conflict.
I have no idea what percentage of Christians have learned Hebrew, but I do know that it's taught in most seminaries, and many Christian schools give courses. My husband and step-daughters have all had some instruction in the language. Biblical translators know it very well. The most accurate translation is the NASB, which is written at a college-age reading level for the greatest accuracy and the best possible understanding. It is likely to be far more helpful to read the best possible translation in the language you understand than to try to stumble through a language you don't know well. (Probably the reason the apostles all spoke in "each person's native language" on Pentecost, huh?) Having done some translating in both Spanish and Russian, I prefer to read the translation done by the person who KNOWS the language rather than guessing through it myself. It's like the way we can study a wonderful scientific discovery made by someone in Japan without having to learn to read and understand Japanese first.
The Bible was not written in Hebrew. And there are HUGE differences between the source language and interpretive language - as you of all people should know. The cultural background implicit in the language can not be eliminated from a highly connotative matter such as religion.
Science uses standard languages: English and German. And it uses a standard protocol that is he same for all languages. To publish in a science you have to follow specific steps and explain each step. It also must be reproducible and is required to be peer-reviewed. That pretty much eliminates linguistic drift.
Until someone can tell me they have read the Old testament in its original language, they can't tell me they take the word of the Bible over anything factual.
The Bible is a theological text -- it is God telling us how to live our lives, not how physical laws work.
-
Oh, I believe in science. I believe in electronics, also. I just don't believe that either science or electronics are always perfect. I believe science has made many wonderful discoveries. As always, the greatest downfall is that people believe that today's science is mostly all correct. In a couple decades, we'll know better. In a couple hundred years, we'll look as dumb as the witch-hunters. Having a knowledge of today's science is great. Believing that today's science knows more than God...not so great.
No one has claimed science knows more than God -- that particular strawman is always irritating.
For the last time -- science is SILENT on God. It is a tool we use tro explain the physical Universe God provided.
As far as your other strawman -- the idea ANYONE says science is "perfect" -- that also misrepresents my statements and the scientific process. Science has built-in mechanisms to correct itself. The scientific METHOD probably won't change in millenia.
We saw that in action when Eisenstein laws of gravity replaced Newtonian laws in the science world. And the theory of Gravity is still being hotly debated.
But apples still fell from trees, despite the change of the theory. And man still evolved from lower life forms, no matter how many laypeople don't like that idea. In fact, the more data we gather (you know there are BILLIONS of data points now, right? None of which contravene TToE), the more it is clear that TToE is broadly accurate.
-
The Bible was not written in Hebrew. And there are HUGE differences between the source language and interpretive language - as you of all people should know. The cultural background implicit in the language can not be eliminated from a highly connotative matter such as religion.
Science uses standard languages: English and German. And it uses a standard protocol that is he same for all languages. To publish in a science you have to follow specific steps and explain each step. It also must be reproducible and is required to be peer-reviewed. That pretty much eliminates linguistic drift.
Until someone can tell me they have read the Old testament in its original language, they can't tell me they take the word of the Bible over anything factual.
The Bible is a theological text -- it is God telling us how to live our lives, not how physical laws work.
Genesis was written in Hebrew, and that was the specific topic.
I confess that I find your attitude to reading the Bible in "it's original language" somewhat amusing, given that tons of scientific discoveries, both true and untrue, were written in many languages besides English and German, and you, no doubt, know all about them without ever learning, say, Latin.
The Bible is theological, among other things. God didn't write us a science textbook, but He did tell us some of what He did. Ignoring what He tells us of His actions is foolish. Believing that our current science knows everything is foolish. Believing that we have facts that are more accurate than God's knowledge is extremely foolish. When our science finally gets everything right, we will find that it fits perfectly with God's statements. Until then, we're not completely right.
-
No one has claimed science knows more than God -- that particular strawman is always irritating. You mean like the "angels holding up airplanes? That strawman? :whatever:
For the last time -- science is SILENT on God. It is a tool we use tro explain the physical Universe God provided.
As far as your other strawman -- the idea ANYONE says science is "perfect" -- that also misrepresents my statements and the scientific process. Science has built-in mechanisms to correct itself. The scientific METHOD probably won't change in millenia.
We saw that in action when Eisenstein laws of gravity replaced Newtonian laws in the science world. And the theory of Gravity is still being hotly debated.
But apples still fell from trees, despite the change of the theory. And man still evolved from lower life forms, no matter how many laypeople don't like that idea. In fact, the more data we gather (you know there are BILLIONS of data points now, right? None of which contravene TToE), the more it is clear that TToE is broadly accurate.
So you refuse to accept that God spoke man into existence, right?
-
No one has claimed science knows more than God -- that particular strawman is always irritating.
For the last time -- science is SILENT on God. It is a tool we use tro explain the physical Universe God provided.
As far as your other strawman -- the idea ANYONE says science is "perfect" -- that also misrepresents my statements and the scientific process. Science has built-in mechanisms to correct itself. The scientific METHOD probably won't change in millenia.
We saw that in action when Eisenstein laws of gravity replaced Newtonian laws in the science world. And the theory of Gravity is still being hotly debated.
But apples still fell from trees, despite the change of the theory. And man still evolved from lower life forms, no matter how many laypeople don't like that idea. In fact, the more data we gather (you know there are BILLIONS of data points now, right? None of which contravene TToE), the more it is clear that TToE is broadly accurate.
God said that man did not evolve from lower forms. Obviously, the science of evolution hasn't gotten it right, yet.
-
No one has claimed science knows more than God -- that particular strawman is always irritating. You mean like the "angels holding up airplanes? That strawman?
There is a difference between an analogy and a strawman argument.
Just because someone has a belief -- be it literal creationism or angels holding up an airplane -- it has no scientific weight. To say that when someone understands science that means they are saying science knows more than God is a strawman argument. It is a complete misrepresentation od the argument. See the difference? Try hard.
God spoke the Universe into existence. In doing so, He began the process that ended up being Man.
-
There is a difference between an analogy and a strawman argument.
Just because someone has a belief -- be it literal creationism or angels holding up an airplane -- it has no scientific weight. To say that when someone understands science that means they are saying science knows more than God is a strawman argument. It is a complete misrepresentation od the argument. See the difference? Try hard.
God spoke the Universe into existence. In doing so, He began the process that ended up being Man.
Just curious...which parts of the Bible do you believe, and which do you toss under the bus?
-
God said that man did not evolve from lower forms. Obviously, the science of evolution hasn't gotten it right, yet.
He said no such thing. Show me in the Bible -- any language -- where He spoke of evolution at all. While you are at it, show me where He explains gravity, physics, quantum mechanics, string theory, astronomy and chemistry.
His story of Adam was a simplification to show Man's relationship with God -- not a science text on the process by which Adam was actually created. he had to summarize for the very very simple savages to whom He was speaking. You don't tell your 2 year old the detailed how he/she was brought intro existence do you? Man 3 thousand years ago was pretty much a 2 year old in terms of the ability to read, write and reason.
-
Just curious...which parts of the Bible do you believe, and which do you toss under the bus?
I believe the whole thing -- as a theological text.
-
Like I mentioned earlier, God is clever enough not to leave his fingerprints all over his creation. I'm guessing that He would not leave behind any evidence other than what we feel in our hearts. Otherwise, we could have belief without faith.
What's wrong with the idea that evolution is God's plan? Why does it have to be a literal interpretation? Why does there have to be conflict between Darwin and God?
-
What's wrong with the idea that evolution is God's plan? Why does it have to be a literal interpretation? Why does there have to be conflict between Darwin and God?
Because the Bible states that God made Man in his own image. Maybe the thought of being "evolved" from a ****ing ape is just a little disgusting. Man was a divine being before the Original Sin happened and Adam was cast out of the garden.
jmho.
-
Like I mentioned earlier, God is clever enough not to leave his fingerprints all over his creation. I'm guessing that He would not leave behind any evidence other than what we feel in our hearts. Otherwise, we could have belief without faith.
What's wrong with the idea that evolution is God's plan? Why does it have to be a literal interpretation? Why does there have to be conflict between Darwin and God?
Excellent post, Sir.
-
Because the Bible states that God made Man in his own image. Maybe the thought of being "evolved" from a ******* ape is just a little disgusting. Man was a divine being before the Original Sin happened and Adam was cast out of the garden.
jmho.
God's physical image? Does he even have one?
Did time as we know it, even exist before God created the heavans and the earth?
Genisis states that God created it all in 6 days and rested on the 7th. IIRC
Does God use the same 24 hour clock that we humans created?
-
He said no such thing. Show me in the Bible -- any language -- where He spoke of evolution at all. While you are at it, show me where He explains gravity, physics, quantum mechanics, string theory, astronomy and chemistry.
His story of Adam was a simplification to show Man's relationship with God -- not a science text on the process by which Adam was actually created. he had to summarize for the very very simple savages to whom He was speaking. You don't tell your 2 year old the detailed how he/she was brought intro existence do you? Man 3 thousand years ago was pretty much a 2 year old in terms of the ability to read, write and reason.
Yeah, those pyramids were created by morons, huh?
Question for you: Do you belive that God created everything?
-
He said no such thing. Show me in the Bible -- any language -- where He spoke of evolution at all.
I can show you in the Bible where it says God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Can you give me the scriptures where it says He did it via evolution? By your own admission, you can't. So now it's your non-scripture backed beliefs verses scripture backed statements. You verses God.
His story of Adam was a simplification to show Man's relationship with God
Show me the scriptures where this is the claim.
If you're going to discuss with me how the heaven and earth came into being, you better have scriptures to back up your claims or it's worthless.
And don't give me this logical fallacy crap of "The Bible doesn't talk about gravity. Does that mean it doesn't exist?" That's dishoinesty beyond the pale. The fact is the Bible *does* discuss how the heavens and earth were created, which is in direct oppostion to the concept of millions and millions of years. That's the only concept under discussion here. So try and stick with what the scriptures do talk about and not about things they don't.
So start coughing up Book, Chapter and Verse to back up your beliefs, or don't bother.
The same Bible that tells me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God says that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. If the creation account can't be taken liteally, then the whole Bible is worthless. I believe all of the scriptures and am not aware of any who truly believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who don't. They may claim they do, but they don't. Someone says they believe in God but how the universe came into being was that God created the circumstances and allowed it to do what it did over a large expanse of time, then God doesn't consider that person to be a believer in Him, and based upon that neither will I.
.
-
Like the wise franksolich, I have no dog in this fight. It contents me to know there is a living God, He guides our life, and He has sent his Son to ensure us a place in heaven.
That said: Jesus taught his followers using parables. Was there really a "Prodigal Son" or a "Good Samaritan," or was Jesus trying to make a point establishing our relationship with God and each other? If there was no actual Prodigal Son, does that make Jesus a liar? Of course not. Can't the Genesis story be a parable about original sin and God's infinite love for us from the moment of cration?
-
THANK YOU SPLASHDOWN. You have stated my point better than I could have. I get too wrapped up in the evidence.
But, actually, God's "footprints" are EVERYWHERE. Simple things, like water expanding when it freezes, seasons, wind, thunderstorms, falling, birds, fish, whales, the Sun/Moon/Stars and so on all present us with questions that we need to answer. Like the facts of inherence that Mendel gave the building blocks centuries before DNA was discovered. Gravity and basic Physics as established by Sir I. Newton, and even Dr. A. Einstein's theories were all clues that God gave us to help figure it all out.
And, clearly, the Creator intended us to figure it out by ourselves. Both Jesus and St. Paul contain lessons that we should learn to carry us forward to what ever we are intended to be, and to deny fact is not what Christianity or Judism is all about. Let's leave that to the Muslims.
Reread that New Testiment without the help of a Minister.
-
Well said. God didn't give me a brain just so I can ignore everything it tells me because someone can use the Bible to justify ignorance. God didn't give me a heart so I can ignore everything it tells me because someone can use the Bible to justify hate.
Men of God had good men who would not ignore the evidence before them put to death. Had they used their brains instead of insisting that their version of God trumps all, we would be much more technologically advanced.
Men of God presided over wars so long and terrible that vast numbers of people chose to take a dangerous sea voyage to an unknown land just to get away from them. Had they listened to their hearts instead of what they saw as God, things might have been different.
Men of God used the Bible to justify slavery, calling blacks the 'descendants of Ham'.
Personally, I think of Science as using our little brains to discern the true wonder of God's creation. Man is infinitely fallible, and we can find evil in the Bible just as easily as we can find it in Science. If that means that I'm not a Christian in your eyes, then frankly I don't care; your opinion does not matter. That judgment is reserved for one being alone.
-
Well said. God didn't give me a brain just so I can ignore everything it tells me because someone can use the Bible to justify ignorance. God didn't give me a heart so I can ignore everything it tells me because someone can use the Bible to justify hate.
Men of God had good men who would not ignore the evidence before them put to death. Had they used their brains instead of insisting that their version of God trumps all, we would be much more technologically advanced.
Men of God presided over wars so long and terrible that vast numbers of people chose to take a dangerous sea voyage to an unknown land just to get away from them. Had they listened to their hearts instead of what they saw as God, things might have been different.
Men of God used the Bible to justify slavery, calling blacks the 'descendants of Ham'.
Personally, I think of Science as using our little brains to discern the true wonder of God's creation. Man is infinitely fallible, and we can find evil in the Bible just as easily as we can find it in Science. If that means that I'm not a Christian in your eyes, then frankly I don't care; your opinion does not matter. That judgment is reserved for one being alone.
Men without God have done just as poorly. In fact, far worse. We've discussed the millions killed by godless leaders repeatedly.
When the Church was so heinous, it was also the main political player. Most high offices could be purchased... true faith was not required. This was the reason for the First Amendment. It was NOT to keep Christians out of politics, but to keep politicians out of our ministries.
Christians were on both sides of the slavery issue...and a whole lot more of them on the side against. It was Christian work that eventually ended it. Ever hear of William Wilberforce?
Evolution is beyond any doubt something God made. He built all of his creatures with the ability to adapt to their environment. This does in no way change the fact that He created each creature. Man was not evolved from apes, Man and Ape were both created. Both may have changed since then, but the fossil record constantly reflects older and older "first men." Just as they've stopped searching for that "missing link" that was so necessary to "prove evolution" when I was a teen, and have stopped talking about it in hopes we'd all forget that no link was found, they've repeatedly found older and older evidence of modern man. Eventually, when they get it right, it will become obvious that modern man is only a few days younger than any other creature. All the evidence that is so important to prove that all things were created by evolution will eventually prove that they weren't.
-
I can show you in the Bible where it says God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Can you give me the scriptures where it says He did it via evolution? By your own admission, you can't. So now it's your non-scripture backed beliefs verses scripture backed statements. You verses God.
So you are on record as saying that the Earth was created in 6 days -- literal days.
Correct?
-
God's physical image? Does he even have one?
Did time as we know it, even exist before God created the heavans and the earth?
Genisis states that God created it all in 6 days and rested on the 7th. IIRC
Does God use the same 24 hour clock that we humans created?
Of course God has a physical image. Jesus is a man. ::)
The Bible doesn't mention when God created time...though possibly it was when He created light.
As for the seven days issue, God said "there was an evening and a morning." He wanted to make those "days" very specific.
For all you who semi-believe, that moment when He spoke energy into existence was a pretty big one. A Being that can speak energy into existence, build planets and suns, build the universe and set it into motion, write the laws of physics in reality, maybe... just maybe, wouldn't have a big problem going ahead and creating each animal and plant, and Adam. You suppose? He told us TWICE that He'd created all things. Maybe He had a reason for repeating Himself?
-
Both may have changed since then, but the fossil record constantly reflects older and older "first men." Just as they've stopped searching for that "missing link" that was so necessary to "prove evolution" when I was a teen, and have stopped talking about it in hopes we'd all forget that no link was found, they've repeatedly found older and older evidence of modern man. Eventually, when they get it right, it will become obvious that modern man is only a few days younger than any other creature. All the evidence that is so important to prove that all things were created by evolution will eventually prove that they weren't.
Please do not mistake your ignorance for some sort of reasoning. See the following chart and tell me which one would be your missing link (it isn't the one in blue). It demonstrates a smooth ongoing transition from early hominid to modern man. There is no talk about a missing link because there isn't a need for one:
(http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg)
-
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/tq-173-md.jpg)
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/sm-285-md.jpg)
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/sm-290-md.jpg)
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bc-114-md.jpg)
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/tq-209-md.jpg)
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/tq-201-md.jpg)
-
As for the seven days issue, God said "there was an evening and a morning." He wanted to make those "days" very specific.
The time duration as we know it between evening and morning varies by what planet one is discussing.
Jupiter for example has a slower rotation IIRC. Therefore the spread of time between morning and evening can and does vary.
I think God created it all. As to God's physical image... Jesus as the son of God, was sent to earth in human form according the bible.
I don't semi-believe. I fully believe that God created the universe.
-
The time duration as we know it between evening and morning varies by what planet one is discussing.
Jupiter for example has a slower rotation IIRC. Therefore the spread of time between morning and evening can and does vary.
I think God created it all. As to God's physical image... Jesus as the son of God, was sent to earth in human form according the bible.
I don't semi-believe. I fully believe that God created the universe.
As do I.
-
As do I.
Ditto. I also feel that the theory of evolution does a much better job of explaining the evidence than Genesis does.
This entire thread illustrates my biggest problem with most organized religion. Instead of focusing on the Big Message of love and forgiveness, we're arguing over the details of Genesis.
-
Oh, but they do say that, and their acolytes are even more noisome than authentic scientists about the matter; I give you the example of the malicious cartoon character primitive, the "Kelvin Mace" primitive, and the instance the nocturnally foul one who, while not accepting evolution 100%, thinks all other theories are garbage.
For the record...
You should probably throw me in with the 100% crowd. Evolution is a science fact. A science fact can at any time be overturned by a new information but that doesn't mean that the fact is in doubt. Evolution has been shown to be a fact and therefore should not be doubted.
-
Evolution is a scientific fact. That it was the force that created every living creature is a scientific assumption.
-
Evolution is a scientific fact. That it was the force that created every living creature is a scientific assumption.
There is no creature alive whose origin cannot be explained by TToE. The MOST studied creature with the MOST evidence of this is Homo Sapiens.
-
There is no creature alive whose origin cannot be explained by TToE. The MOST studied creature with the MOST evidence of this is Homo Sapiens.
Yeah, I've seen the evidence of some of those ancestors...3 skull fragments, 4 teeth, part of an arm bone. From that, we can tell how large it was, whether it lived on ground or in trees, what it ate, and when it lived. It's all solid truth, no faith involved.
-
Ditto. I also feel that the theory of evolution does a much better job of explaining the evidence than Genesis does.
This entire thread illustrates my biggest problem withpl most organized religion. Instead of focusing on the Big Message of love and forgiveness, we're arguing over the details of Genesis.
Yes.
God used Genesis to explain to a near-savage tribe of people what their relationship to Him was and His relationship to the Universe.
That God created the Universe is not in question. To explain to people whose highest pinnacle of science was planting crops about the complexities of the Universe would be pointless. Instead, God used His words to explain to them that He was the source of everything and, more importantly, He did so from pure love. The stories in Genesis tell His children of how they should grasp Him (there is no understanding, per se). He did not belabor the mechanics, and who are we to debate that wisdom?
God did not say "the fruit of knowledge grew as a result of a combination of the following factors..." His point was that disobedience made Him both angry and sad. It also demosntrated His patience.
I need not go through the rest of it ... to take the Bible as a science text is to completely misunderstand it. And demean it.
-
Yes.
God used Genesis to explain to a near-savage tribe of people what their relationship to Him was and His relationship to the Universe.
That God created the Universe is not in question. To explain to people whose highest pinnacle of science was planting crops about the complexities of the Universe would be pointless. Instead, God used His words to explain to them that He was the source of everything and, more importantly, He did so from pure love. The stories in Genesis tell His children of how they should grasp Him (there is no understanding, per se). He did not belabor the mechanics, and who are we to debate that wisdom?
God did not say "the fruit of knowledge grew as a result of a combination of the following factors..." His point was that disobedience made Him both angry and sad. It also demosntrated His patience.
I need not go through the rest of it ... to take the Bible as a science text is to completely misunderstand it. And demean it.
:rotf: Taking God at His word is demeaning. :rotf: I'm sorry, I'm sure you were serious, but that's funny.
As to the savage brutes who could barely plant crops, I'm guessing you've forgotten that Moses was adopted by a princess of Egypt, therefore most likely received the best possible education for his time...from a people who built wonders that still stand, thousands of years later, and with technology that we don't understand. I'm sure you've forgotten that these "savages" built the original temple, the description of which is quite elaborate. Somewhat more than throwing seeds in a hole poked with a stick. Given an evolutionary mindset, I'm sure it's easy to look back at those "primitives" that came before us...but just consider, they were far fewer generations from the perfection of Adam and Eve than are we.
-
:rotf: Taking God at His word is demeaning. :rotf: I'm sorry, I'm sure you were serious, but that's funny.
As to the savage brutes who could barely plant crops, I'm guessing you've forgotten that Moses was adopted by a princess of Egypt, therefore most likely received the best possible education for his time...from a people who built wonders that still stand, thousands of years later, and with technology that we don't understand. I'm sure you've forgotten that these "savages" built the original temple, the description of which is quite elaborate. Somewhat more than throwing seeds in a hole poked with a stick. Given an evolutionary mindset, I'm sure it's easy to look back at those "primitives" that came before us...but just consider, they were far fewer generations from the perfection of Adam and Eve than are we.
Mocking God using His word is demeaning. Spitting in His face by rejecting His gifts while saying "but You told us to" is demeaning.
And there were a very tiny percentage of scholars in Moses' day -- most people were uneducated. Would Moses understand Einsteinian Physics? Or the red shift? Or even the idea that the stars in the sky were in fact other stars? Even if you explained it, it would be rejected out of hand. God had to speak to His children in terms they could understand.
-
Mocking God using His word is demeaning. Spitting in His face by rejecting His gifts while saying "but You told us to" is demeaning.
And there were a very tiny percentage of scholars in Moses' day -- most people were uneducated. Would Moses understand Einsteinian Physics? Or the red shift? Or even the idea that the stars in the sky were in fact other stars? Even if you explained it, it would be rejected out of hand. God had to speak to His children in terms they could understand.
Moses very likely knew how pyramids were built, something we don't. Would he understand physics? Why wouldn't he, if taught? Men are men, what one knows, another can learn.
As for mocking God, seriously arguing that He lied to us would qualify, I believe. Being so sure that man's current knowledge is extensive enough to explain away God's words would qualify. Reading the history of Noah, and then insisting that the flood couldn't be worldwide, and couldn't cause all the evidence we currently "believe" supports evolution would qualify. He is there, then, just as He is here, now...He told us what happened. When He walked the earth as Jesus, He didn't correct anything. Rather, he quoted scripture and explained the next step in His plan. If Moses wrote it down wrong, why wouldn't Jesus fix it?
-
Moses very likely knew how pyramids were built, something we don't. Would he understand physics? Why wouldn't he, if taught? Men are men, what one knows, another can learn.
As for mocking God, seriously arguing that He lied to us would qualify, I believe. Being so sure that man's current knowledge is extensive enough to explain away God's words would qualify. Reading the history of Noah, and then insisting that the flood couldn't be worldwide, and couldn't cause all the evidence we currently "believe" supports evolution would qualify. He is there, then, just as He is here, now...He told us what happened. When He walked the earth as Jesus, He didn't correct anything. Rather, he quoted scripture and explained the next step in His plan. If Moses wrote it down wrong, why wouldn't Jesus fix it?
So you are simply a YEC, right? You think the world was created 6,000 (or so) years ago? I just want to get this straight.
-
So you are simply a YEC, right? You think the world was created 6,000 (or so) years ago? I just want to get this straight.
Do you believe that God created everything, but couldn't possibly have done it in six days?
-
Do you believe that God created everything, but couldn't possibly have done it in six days?
It is not a question of possible, it is a question of what He did. And it doesn't change the question at hand -- how old is the Universe (using today's definitions of time)?
-
It is not a question of possible, it is a question of what He did. And it doesn't change the question at hand -- how old is the Universe (using today's definitions of time)?
Ok.
1. Do you believe that God created the universe?
2. Do you belive that He did it in six days?
-
1. Do you believe that God created the universe?
2. Do you belive that He did it in six days?
1. Yes.
2. No. He set it in motion and continues to guide it, but the 'six day' story is not a literal history.
This is what I believe. I do not insist that others believe it, and I will gladly fight (verbally or otherwise) anyone who insists that I adopt their beliefs.
And if anyone thinks I'm going to Hell for not believing in the literal interpretation of events, then I think that person missed the point entirely.
-
1. Yes.
2. No. He set it in motion and continues to guide it, but the 'six day' story is not a literal history.
This is what I believe. I do not insist that others believe it, and I will gladly fight (verbally or otherwise) anyone who insists that I adopt their beliefs.
And if anyone thinks I'm going to Hell for not believing in the literal interpretation of events, then I think that person missed the point entirely.
Beliefs are great -- but the 1st Amendment is clear that the State should not favor one belief over another. You are wise in your stance.
I am waiting to hear back from my detractors on their beliefs.
-
Ok.
1. Do you believe that God created the universe?
2. Do you belive that He did it in six days?
Yes
and time is relative. Even the bible says that God's "day" is many years to us. What's to say that God's "day" isn't based on the completion of a cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy ??
-
Yes
and time is relative. Even the bible says that God's "day" is many years to us. What's to say that God's "day" isn't based on the completion of a cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy ??
That is the perspective taken by most modern scientists who are also Christians (80%+ for those keeping track at home) -- and the implicit stance of the RCC.
-
Beliefs are great -- but the 1st Amendment is clear that the State should not favor one belief over another. You are wise in your stance.
I am waiting to hear back from my detractors on their beliefs.
I find it interesting that someone else answered your question, but you still haven't.
-
I find it interesting that someone else answered your question, but you still haven't.
The thread is deep -- I am sure I answered all questions posted, but it is possible I missed one.
Please ask again.
-
Yes
and time is relative. Even the bible says that God's "day" is many years to us. What's to say that God's "day" isn't based on the completion of a cycle of the Milky Way Galaxy ??
Well, God. He said there was an evening and a morning, one day. As He was talking about this planet, either He held it to extremely slow rotations without all the attendant hot and cold effects, or He meant a 24 hour day. Read Genesis again. He was very explicit.
-
1. Yes.
2. No. He set it in motion and continues to guide it, but the 'six day' story is not a literal history.
This is what I believe. I do not insist that others believe it, and I will gladly fight (verbally or otherwise) anyone who insists that I adopt their beliefs.
And if anyone thinks I'm going to Hell for not believing in the literal interpretation of events, then I think that person missed the point entirely.
:whatever: That isn't the requirement for going to Heaven. It just seems kind of dumb to believe in God and trust Him to run your life when you don't believe His words.
-
Well, God. He said there was an evening and a morning, one day. As He was talking about this planet, either He held it to extremely slow rotations without all the attendant hot and cold effects, or He meant a 24 hour day. Read Genesis again. He was very explicit.
I asked before and I can't remember your answer. Using current dating, how old is the Earth?
-
:whatever: That isn't the requirement for going to Heaven. It just seems kind of dumb to believe in God and trust Him to run your life when you don't believe His words.
It is even dumber to reject His gifts of intellect and reasoning and replace them with a theological text designed to teach His Children how to worship Him.
-
I asked before and I can't remember your answer. Using current dating, how old is the Earth?
I don't think you asked me before...and I don't know. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they messed up and brought death into the world? Was Adam's age figured from his creation, or from the day death entered the world...the date he actually started to age? When people lived 1000 years, how old were they before they had kids? Was a generation 20 years, or not?
Now a question for you...humans have been hanging around this world for something like 95,000 years, according to your beliefs. Why did we do absolutely nothing for 90,000 of those years, and then suddenly invent civilization, cities, writing, etc. etc.? Is this really a plausible theory, given what we know about humans?
-
It is even dumber to reject His gifts of intellect and reasoning and replace them with a theological text designed to teach His Children how to worship Him.
And how is it rejecting those gifts when my intellect and reasoning tell me that He is more likely to be right than the current version of ever-changing "scientific knowledge?" We'll know when science finally gets it right because everything will match what He says He did.
-
That isn't the requirement for going to Heaven. It just seems kind of dumb to believe in God and trust Him to run your life when you don't believe His words.
I agree. Either you believe in God's Word, or you don't. Either you believe God is all-powerful, or you don't. If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He created the earth in 6 days is not a problem. If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He has the ability to create an earth that appears to be much, much older than it really is not a problem. If you believe in God, then you automatically don't believe the Genesis account of creation is a fable. In fact, if you don't believe that God created in 6 days, God doesn't view you as truly believing in Him, something that will eventaully be realized by that individual, and based upon that I have no reason to either.
.
-
I don't think you asked me before...and I don't know. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they messed up and brought death into the world? Was Adam's age figured from his creation, or from the day death entered the world...the date he actually started to age? When people lived 1000 years, how old were they before they had kids? Was a generation 20 years, or not?
Now a question for you...humans have been hanging around this world for something like 95,000 years, according to your beliefs. Why did we do absolutely nothing for 90,000 of those years, and then suddenly invent civilization, cities, writing, etc. etc.? Is this really a plausible theory, given what we know about humans?
Well, take a guess on magnitude -- thousands, millions, or billions of years?
-
I agree. Either you believe in God's Word, or you don't. Either you believe God is all-powerful, or you don't. If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He created the earth in 6 days is not a problem. If you believe God is all-powerful, then believing He has the ability to create an earth that appears to be much, much older than it really is not a problem. If you believe in God, then you automatically don't believe the Genesis account of creation is a fable. In fact, if you don't believe that God created in 6 days, God doesn't view you as truly believing in Him, something that will eventaully be realized by that individual, and based upon that I have no reason to either.
.
If you didn't read it in the original language then you are relying on a knock off.
God's Word is how we are to interact with Him, not how Things Work.
-
I don't think you asked me before...and I don't know. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before they messed up and brought death into the world? Was Adam's age figured from his creation, or from the day death entered the world...the date he actually started to age? When people lived 1000 years, how old were they before they had kids? Was a generation 20 years, or not?
Now a question for you...humans have been hanging around this world for something like 95,000 years, according to your beliefs. Why did we do absolutely nothing for 90,000 of those years, and then suddenly invent civilization, cities, writing, etc. etc.? Is this really a plausible theory, given what we know about humans?
Agriculture. Until the advent of agriculture large scale civilization was impossible. You just can't get enough food to feed 10,000 people by simply hunting the passing herds.
(http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/lstokey/2005/1/v40n2-francois1en_4819.jpg)
Take a look at that chart. Over the last 100,000 years, CO2 levels where pretty low relatively speaking. A large amount of the gas was trapped in the continent spanning glaciers. You see that about the end of that ice age, there was a massive rise in the CO2 levels. That was due to the ice melting, and the CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
Now, it's widely accepted scientific fact that higher CO2 levels are required for large scale agriculture to take place. A silver lining to AGW was that more food would be able to be grown to support the worlds population. So prior to the melting of these ice caps humanity was unable to sustain and feed a large population like it can today. They had to devote a massive amount of time to hunting and gathering, which restricted the amount of time they had to advancing in things like arts and sciences.
We can support this by looking at the fossil record of humanity and it's ancestors. Each successive species of humanity had a larger brain, and was more capable of complex thought. Each successive species of humanity exhibited more and more ability to "invent", there by making food easier to get, and being able to devote more time to expanding things like language, art, clothing, etc...
So, once that CO2 was released, we where able to start cultivating crops, and planting them in large scale quantities. Humanity was able to settle down in one place now, since it was no longer a slave to the moving herds. Since they had to devote less time to getting that food because one person could now provide what 20 people used to be able to provide, more and more people where able to devote their spare time to "inventing" society.
This is why I laugh at people who hate global warming. None of us would be alive today if it where not for global warming. Humanity would still be largely hunting and gathering groups, with our population reaching no more then a couple million world wide.
-
Not sure if you're aware of this but you can translate books from one lauguage to another.
And if it's a "knock off," for what reason would I have to believe that it gives us an accurate reflection of "how we are to interact with Him?"
If it's a book where some things are fables and others aren't, for what reason do I have to believe some man's judgement on what is accurate and what isn't? In fact, why should I worship a God that so weak He can't even provide for me a book that is untainted, a book that can't be proven as being accurate by numerous manuscripts?
The other thing I would have to believe is that God lied. The writers of the Bible were inspired of God. IOW, the things they wrote were exactly what God told them to write, nothing more and nothing less. The writers were the instrument through which God transfered His thoughts to paper for us. I'm not even willing to discuss the Bible being written in any other way than what I just described with anyone because that automatically places the discussion in a realm that is inaccurate. God described a 6 day creation, so that's what happened. To believe it is a fable is to believe God intentionally lied. I'll put it this way: If God had created the universe, or allowed it to form itself, over a long period of time, He would have stated so. To believe otherwise is to say that God is so weak-minded he didn't know how to explain what He did, so to "keep it simple" he just made up the story about the 6 day thingy. I don't believe God is stupid at all. If He had "created" over millions of years, He would know exactly how to explain it in a way that all men from all times could understand, and He would have had Moses pen that explanation in the Book of Genesis.
It still comes back to whether one believes God is all-powerful. And all-powerful God could create the universe in 6 days, and he could create it in a way that makes it appear much older.
I'm confident God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Why things appear millions of years old I don't know. If it was important for us to know, God would have told us. He did tell us He created in 6 days, so that apparently was important. What it tells us is that He's so powerful he can create from nothing things we have barely begin to scratch the surface of beginning to understand. The day after Adam was created, he didn't look one day old, so there's evidence that God can create something that appears older than it really is. My point has been that if He could create a whole universe just by speaking it into existance, then making it appear older than it really is would be a snap.
.
-
Not sure if you're aware of this but you can translate books from one lauguage to another.
And if it's a "knock off," for what reason would I have to believe that it gives us an accurate reflection of "how we are to interact with Him?"
If it's a book where some things are fables and others aren't, for what reason do I have to believe some man's judgement on what is accurate and what isn't? In fact, why should I worship a God that so weak He can't even provide for me a book that is untainted, a book that can't be proven as being accurate by numerous manuscripts?
The other thing I would have to believe is that God lied. The writers of the Bible were inspired of God. IOW, the things they wrote were exactly what God told them to write, nothing more and nothing less. The writers were the instrument through which God transfered His thoughts to paper for us. I'm not even willing to discuss the Bible being written in any other way than what I just described with anyone because that automatically places the discussion in a realm that is inaccurate. God described a 6 day creation, so that's what happened. To believe it is a fable is to believe God intentionally lied. I'll put it this way: If God had created the universe, or allowed it to form itself, over a long period of time, He would have stated so. To believe otherwise is to say that God is so weak-minded he didn't know how to explain what He did, so to "keep it simple" he just made up the story about the 6 day thingy. I don't believe God is stupid at all. If He had "created" over millions of years, He would know exactly how to explain it in a way that all men from all times could understand, and He would have had Moses pen that explanation in the Book of Genesis.
It still comes back to whether one believes God is all-powerful. And all-powerful God could create the universe in 6 days, and he could create it in a way that makes it appear much older.
I'm confident God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Why things appear millions of years old I don't know. If it was important for us to know, God would have told us. He did tell us He created in 6 days, so that apparently was important. What it tells us is that He's so powerful he can create from nothing things we have barely begin to scratch the surface of beginning to understand. The day after Adam was created, he didn't look one day old, so there's evidence that God can create something that appears older than it really is. My point has been that if He could create a universe, then making it appear older than it really is would be a snap.
.
Wheren't those books translated by people who could gain from whats written in them?
And translating from one language to another is never concrete. Take a look at just about any dubbed Japanese anime and you'll see my point.
-
Wheren't those books translated by people who could gain from whats written in them?
And translating from one language to another is never concrete. Take a look at just about any dubbed Japanese anime and you'll see my point.
GREAT example. I love anime and always listen to it in Japanese. The "good" translation is a bit more literal: "I followed the foxdog and saw his shrine." Japanese is much more contextual than English: "I followed the raccoon to his house, where I saw he had established a shrine to his ancestors. It was, of course, facing East in accordance with Fung Shui."
Yet people think they can translate from Aramaic to English and lose no context at all.
-
Wheren't those books translated by people who could gain from whats written in them?
I have no reason to believe that. To believe that God would tell inspired men what to write in a book in order to tell us what we need to know, and then to allow that book to be somehow taited over the years, would defeat the purpose of God having men write down His words to begin with. That's basically saying that God gave us something way back when and then just crossed His fingers and hoped those people on down the line got an accurate account. I'm fully confident that the same God who's powerful enough to speak the universe into existance would make sure His Word lasted through the ages exactly as He revealed them.
.
-
My point has been that if He could create a whole universe just by speaking it into existance, then making it appear older than it really is would be a sin
.
Yet He didn't. He spake this Universe into existence and created all the rules that run it. He has been very specific -- Things work according to mechanical processes that are reproducible.
God is not a prankster. He designed this fabulous Universe and started the process that would end up with the modern Human Brain. At some point of His choosing he started inserting souls -- perhaps earlier than we realize.
True scientists find God more often than not -- the way the Universe works is fantastic and awe-inspiring.
The standard Biblical "God as Father" diminishes Him.
-
I have no reason to believe that. To believe that God would tell inspired men what to write in a book in order to tell us what we need to know, and then to allow that book to be somehow taited over the years, would defeat the purpose of God having men write down His words to begin with. That's basically saying that God gave us something way back when and then just crossed His fingers and hoped those people on down the line got an accurate account. I'm fully confident that the same God who's powerful enough to speak the universe into existance would make sure His Word lasted through the ages exactly as He revealed them.
.
So do you read the original text written by the Apostles? Or like most people the King James bible that was written in the 1600's?
And let us not forget that most of the old testament was an oral history passed along for thousands of years before being written down. Ever do that game where you sit with a circle of people and tell the person to the right of you one thing, and hear what the person to the left finally gets it as?
-
I have no reason to believe that. To believe that God would tell inspired men what to write in a book in order to tell us what we need to know, and then to allow that book to be somehow taited over the years, would defeat the purpose of God having men write down His words to begin with. That's basically saying that God gave us something way back when and then just crossed His fingers and hoped those people on down the line got an accurate account. I'm fully confident that the same God who's powerful enough to speak the universe into existance would make sure His Word lasted through the ages exactly as He revealed them.
.
God made His plan clear: I provide this to you, mankind, so you will understand our relationship. I love you and give you free will to love me back. I will send My Son to you to absorb your sins. He will be tortured and die for you. This isn't easy and I feel His pain -- you should learn from His example.
God never lies. He provided a Universe that follows the rules -- we just need to discover those rules.
-
My point has been that if He could create a whole universe just by speaking it into existance, then making it appear older than it really is would be a sin
That not what I said. I said "My point has been that if He could create a universe, then making it appear older than it really is would be a snap."
All you're saying to me is that you don't believe God is all-powerful. In fact, you really told me you don't believe in God at all, which is exactly how I will adress you on this topic.
.
-
So do you read the original text written by the Apostles? Or like most people the King James bible that was written in the 1600's?
There are numerous manuscripts that have been translated accurately. Once again, God made sure His Word was handed down accurately, otherwise I have no reason to believe any of it.
And let us not forget that most of the old testament was an oral history passed along for thousands of years before being written down. Ever do that game where you sit with a circle of people and tell the person to the right of you one thing, and hear what the person to the left finally gets it as?
I've already explained this, God told all the inspired writers exactly what to write down.
.
-
There are numerous manuscripts that have been translated accurately. Once again, God made sure His Word was handed down accurately, otherwise I have no reason to believe any of it.
I've already explained this, God told all the inspired writers exactly what to write down.
.
Thats your prerogative I guess.
I myself am going to believe that todays works are probably quite differant from what they where when they were originally dictated from either the divine, or man, whoever it may have been.
-
Thats your prerogative I guess.
I myself am going to believe that todays works are probably quite differant from what they where when they were originally dictated from either the divine, or man, whoever it may have been.
Then my question is why believe any of it? You've got a God who's so weak he can't preserve his word from generation to generation. And on top of that his word was written in a language which might not be tranlated correctly. And some of it is fables and others aren't, but who can really tell.
Not how it works. It's either infallible and has been preserved accurately, or it's the most worthless book ever written because who can depend on it since it might be accurate or it might not, or this story might be a fable or it might not be. Impossible to have a confident faith in something that's sorta maybe the same but probably quite different from what it originally was. If that's all it was, then no thanks, I'd pass.
.
-
There are numerous manuscripts that have been translated accurately. Once again, God made sure His Word was handed down accurately, otherwise I have no reason to believe any of it.
I've already explained this, God told all the inspired writers exactly what to write down.
.
See my example upthread. How can the writers exactly translate when there is built in bias? Think about this statement: "We went to Wynn Dixie today and had po-boys and hush puppies." Translate that into Spanish and see if it makes any sense (yes, I know Wynn Dixie doesn't sell Po-Boys).
If you aren't reading the original language you aren't reading a literal interpretation.
-
Then my question is why believe any of it? You've got a God who's so weak he can't preserve his word from generation to generation. And on top of that his word was written in a language which might not be tranlated correctly. And some of it is fables and others aren't, but who can really tell.
Not how it works. It's either infallible and has been preserved accurately, or it's the most worthless book ever written because who can depend on it since it might be accurate or it might not, or this story might be a fable or it might not be. Impossible to have a confident faith in something that's sorta maybe the same but probably quite different from what it originally was. If that's all it was, then no thanks, I'd pass.
.
Or God wanted us to understand the important moral lessons in His word, which transcend language barriers. He didn't describe F=ma anywhere -- why do you think that is? Maybe because the Bible is a liturgical text and not a science text?
-
If the Bible as we know it is not a 100% accurate reflection of what God had inspired men write regardless of the language of which it has been translated, then it is worthless. If God could not forsee that it was not going to be possible to accurately translate His Word into any language and it not lose any of it's original meaning, then there is no God.
.
-
If you didn't read it in the original language then you are relying on a knock off.
God's Word is how we are to interact with Him, not how Things Work.
Please quote the scripture to back that one up.
-
Please quote the scripture to back that one up.
Qoute where it says that if the Bible is not accurate to the word, then there is no God?
-
Qoute where it says that if the Bible is not accurate to the word, then there is no God?
Maybe you should ask the one who said that.
-
Wheren't those books translated by people who could gain from whats written in them?
And translating from one language to another is never concrete. Take a look at just about any dubbed Japanese anime and you'll see my point.
The Bible has been translated numerous times from the oldest copies available in the original languages. There are more preserved copies and partial copies of the Bible than of any other manuscript ever. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the copies were unchanged. If you choose not to believe, that's your prerogative, but it isn't based on "reason and intellect," it's based on assumptions and pride.
-
Well, take a guess on magnitude -- thousands, millions, or billions of years?
Again, how long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? Thousands of years? Longer? Obviously, the world was very full of life by Noah's day, so the animals outside the Garden were probably breeding...and maybe using the abilities God built in to adapt to their environments. How long do you think it took to fill the earth before death began?
-
It is even dumber to reject His gifts of intellect and reasoning and replace them with a theological text designed to teach His Children how to worship Him.
IF, (and that's a big if), the text were only intended to teach people how to worship, you might have a small point. Maybe...
However, we have no reason to believe that the only point of the Bible is "how to worship." He could have simply skipped a lot of it if that were so. Why, then, would He tell us twice about the beginning of our world? Just for fun? A little "inside joke" for the oh-so-smart of each succeeding generation? :whatever:
-
Agriculture. Until the advent of agriculture large scale civilization was impossible. You just can't get enough food to feed 10,000 people by simply hunting the passing herds.
(http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/lstokey/2005/1/v40n2-francois1en_4819.jpg)
Take a look at that chart. Over the last 100,000 years, CO2 levels where pretty low relatively speaking. A large amount of the gas was trapped in the continent spanning glaciers. You see that about the end of that ice age, there was a massive rise in the CO2 levels. That was due to the ice melting, and the CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
Now, it's widely accepted scientific fact that higher CO2 levels are required for large scale agriculture to take place. A silver lining to AGW was that more food would be able to be grown to support the worlds population. So prior to the melting of these ice caps humanity was unable to sustain and feed a large population like it can today. They had to devote a massive amount of time to hunting and gathering, which restricted the amount of time they had to advancing in things like arts and sciences.
We can support this by looking at the fossil record of humanity and it's ancestors. Each successive species of humanity had a larger brain, and was more capable of complex thought. Each successive species of humanity exhibited more and more ability to "invent", there by making food easier to get, and being able to devote more time to expanding things like language, art, clothing, etc...
So, once that CO2 was released, we where able to start cultivating crops, and planting them in large scale quantities. Humanity was able to settle down in one place now, since it was no longer a slave to the moving herds. Since they had to devote less time to getting that food because one person could now provide what 20 people used to be able to provide, more and more people where able to devote their spare time to "inventing" society.
This is why I laugh at people who hate global warming. None of us would be alive today if it where not for global warming. Humanity would still be largely hunting and gathering groups, with our population reaching no more then a couple million world wide.
Well, Thank God for CO2!!
-
Yet He didn't. He spake this Universe into existence and created all the rules that run it. He has been very specific -- Things work according to mechanical processes that are reproducible.
God is not a prankster. He designed this fabulous Universe and started the process that would end up with the modern Human Brain. At some point of His choosing he started inserting souls -- perhaps earlier than we realize.
True scientists find God more often than not -- the way the Universe works is fantastic and awe-inspiring.
The standard Biblical "God as Father" diminishes Him.
Whereas the standard "reasoning" view that He lied in His book is perfectly respectful. :whatever:
-
Again, how long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? Thousands of years? Longer? Obviously, the world was very full of life by Noah's day, so the animals outside the Garden were probably breeding...and maybe using the abilities God built in to adapt to their environments. How long do you think it took to fill the earth before death began?
It is an easy question -- how old do you think the Earth is? In years: thousands, millions, billions?
-
Whereas the standard "reasoning" view that He lied in His book is perfectly respectful. :whatever:
I didn't say he lied -- I say that people who close their eyes to the facts must come to the conclusion that God lied.
Me? It is very clear that God made this Universe and gave us the ability to discover its wonders. It is sad when people reject the gift of discovery.
-
The Bible has been translated numerous times from the oldest copies available in the original languages. There are more preserved copies and partial copies of the Bible than of any other manuscript ever. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the copies were unchanged. If you choose not to believe, that's your prerogative, but it isn't based on "reason and intellect," it's based on assumptions and pride.
It is based on knowledge. Knowledge of languages and culture. Anthropology.
Or do you decry that as well?
-
It is an easy question -- how old do you think the Earth is? In years: thousands, millions, billions?
So is mine...how long were they in the Garden?
-
I didn't say he lied -- I say that people who close their eyes to the facts must come to the conclusion that God lied.
Me? It is very clear that God made this Universe and gave us the ability to discover its wonders. It is sad when people reject the gift of discovery.
Why would anyone reject the gift of discovery? On the other hand, why would anyone be so sure that the current scientific beliefs are more accurate than the eyewitness account of the Creator? It takes way too much faith to believe that our current scientific beliefs are all accurate.
-
It is based on knowledge. Knowledge of languages and culture. Anthropology.
Or do you decry that as well?
Of course not, since so much of it backs up the Biblical accounts. :-) There have been many, many digs in the Holy Land that proved the scoffers were wrong when they doubted the Biblical history. Just as eventually our discoveries will prove that the account in Genesis is completely factual...if He gives us that long, given that we're currently working frantically in the wrong direction in many areas.
-
Of course not, since so much of it backs up the Biblical accounts. :-) There have been many, many digs in the Holy Land that proved the scoffers were wrong when they doubted the Biblical history. Just as eventually our discoveries will prove that the account in Genesis is completely factual...if He gives us that long, given that we're currently working frantically in the wrong direction in many areas.
Could you site examples please? Just for my curiousity.
-
Qoute where it says that if the Bible is not accurate to the word, then there is no God?
2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
If all scripture is given by inspiration of God, then it is accurate to the word. That's exactly what this verse means; that God's Word was given by inspiration, and it's all that man needs in order to be instructed in righteousness. If I can't trust God's Word as being 100% accuarate, then I can't trust any of it, and I wouldn't. I'm certainly not in any position to use it "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." It would be foolish to do so.
Once again, any "God" who is so weak they can't preserve their word accurately from generation to generation isn't much of a "God." It's my conclusion that under those circumstance that God doesn't exist. A God that is unable to make sure His Word is not 100% accurately delivered for us to know and be certain about is a God that doesn't have the power to save anyone from their sins. So I'll change it a little; if there were a "god" that could only give us a "Bible (that) is not accurate to the word," then he isn't much of a god, certainly not worth listening to since he can't even deliver us scripture than is reliable.
Guys, there's just no way you're ever going to win this argument, because your argument isn't with me, it's with God, and you're not going to defeat God. Once you place the Bible in the "some of it is fable" category, then who's to say what is fable and what isn't? The Bible tells me that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. Who's to say that isn't a fable? Or if His death on the cross isn't a fable, who's to say that the fable isn't that He died for my sins? Maybe He didn't die for my sins at all, but He died in order to assure that the people on the planet Blandron in Galaxy NGC 1275 wouldn't die from Lexortrymothia. Or that God really wants me to "pray without ceasing." Maybe that's just a fable, too. freedumb said that "God wanted us to understand the important moral lessons in His word." What moral lessons? Who's to say that these supposed "moral lessons" aren't just fables. Given that premise, there is an endless amount of Bible references that you could provide but could never prove that they aren't fables. You've painted yourself into a corner. Once you cross that threshold, then why believe in God at all?
.
-
Well, God. He said there was an evening and a morning, one day. As He was talking about this planet, either He held it to extremely slow rotations without all the attendant hot and cold effects, or He meant a 24 hour day. Read Genesis again. He was very explicit.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
and: http://www.netrover.com/~numbers/bible-numbers-2a.html
and for those that might also believe some of what the Quran says:
In the 70th chapter of the Qurán, for instance, a Day is
declared to be 50,000 years!
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure
whereof is (as) fifty thousand years: Qurán 70.4
Again, like I said, time is relative, at least relative to one's perception. Also, one must remember that the Quran is largely based on the Old Testament with Muhammed's ideologies thrown in. Even Jesus was recognized as a prophet by the Quran.
-
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
All that's saying is that God is an eternal being and time has no meaning to Him. If you have no beginning and no end, what is a day compared to eternity? what is a week compared to eternity? what is 50 quadrillion years compared to eternity?
Those verses were never meant to be used to say that when God says "day and night" that he could have meant billions of years. In fact that's a misuse of those verses.
The Hebrew words in Genesis describing the days of creation are the same words used in other OT scripture denoting a normal 24-hour day. A simple examination in an Interlinear Bible and/or a good reference book like Strong's Exhaustive Concordance will point the way. Once again, either one believes God is powerful enough to speak the universe into existance in 6 days, or they don't. If God is that powerful, then creating an aged earth (and universe) which appears to be much older than it truly is really becomes a non-issue with Him. Really, if being is so powerful they can just speak and something is formed from nothing, then that same being making a rock that appears to be trillions upon trillions of years old, when it's really only a few seconds old, would be a snap.
.
-
Could you site examples please? Just for my curiousity.
Sodom and Gommorrah were found to have high levels of bitumen and evidence of high heat...and were in the areas descibed in the Bible
The walls of Jericho did fall, and fell outwards.
Saul's armor was put in the temple of Ashtaroth and his head in the temple of Dagon. This had been considered an error because those temples are not usually found in the same place, but they were found.
The Pool of Siloam was found to be inside the city walls, despite "scholars" opposite opinions.
There were conflicting opinions on the "gutter" used by Joab to enter Jerusalem until it was discovered.
For more information, try Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict."
-
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
and: http://www.netrover.com/~numbers/bible-numbers-2a.html
and for those that might also believe some of what the Quran says:
In the 70th chapter of the Qurán, for instance, a Day is
declared to be 50,000 years!
The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure
whereof is (as) fifty thousand years: Qurán 70.4
Again, like I said, time is relative, at least relative to one's perception. Also, one must remember that the Quran is largely based on the Old Testament with Muhammed's ideologies thrown in. Even Jesus was recognized as a prophet by the Quran.
The fact that God lives outside time does not mean He doesn't know what an evening and a morning are.
Gen 1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Gen 1:6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
Gen 1:8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, {and} fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
...There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
...There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
...And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Then He rested the seventh day, and made that DAY a day of worship and rest for humans. If each day were a million years long, then we aren't even to the first resting period. ::)
-
The Bible has been translated numerous times from the oldest copies available in the original languages. There are more preserved copies and partial copies of the Bible than of any other manuscript ever. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the copies were unchanged. If you choose not to believe, that's your prerogative, but it isn't based on "reason and intellect," it's based on assumptions and pride.
I have yet to see any of the portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were anything close to the Bible. At least those that were NOT interpreted. I've only read transliterations without the "researchers" "guessing" at missing portions.
I would, however like to see the entire known scrolls done in the same way as in the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered".
Freedumb, can you point me to a transliteration of Genesis?
-
So is mine...how long were they in the Garden?
Since I think the "garden" is allegorical it makes your question rhetorical. The garden and the tree of knowledge is ow God told His children to behave -- or else.
Mine is a very concrete question. How old is the Earth? You don't even have to be specific -- magnitude will do.
-
I have yet to see any of the portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were anything close to the Bible. At least those that were NOT interpreted. I've only read transliterations without the "researchers" "guessing" at missing portions.
I would, however like to see the entire known scrolls done in the same way as in the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered".
Freedumb, can you point me to a transliteration of Genesis?
This is as good a starting point as any -- http://www.hareidi.org/ref/Genesis1.htm
It already points to 4 generations of possible misinterpretation. It isn't a question of "guessing" missing portions -- it just ideas and concepts that don't carry from culture to culture. Like the mexican "chinga" -- it does not translate to English in any way shape or form. It is 100% culture-dependent. You can approximate but unless you understand the underlying concept, MEANING IS LOST.
Sorry, that is just Anthropology 101.
-
Sodom and Gommorrah were found to have high levels of bitumen and evidence of high heat...and were in the areas descibed in the Bible
The walls of Jericho did fall, and fell outwards.
Saul's armor was put in the temple of Ashtaroth and his head in the temple of Dagon. This had been considered an error because those temples are not usually found in the same place, but they were found.
The Pool of Siloam was found to be inside the city walls, despite "scholars" opposite opinions.
There were conflicting opinions on the "gutter" used by Joab to enter Jerusalem until it was discovered.
For more information, try Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict."
Evidence of modern history suggested in the Bible is not evidence of ancient history (millions or billions of years prior). It is like saying "I found a bottlecap from 1964 -- there must have been bottle factories in 1192."
God was speaking to His children in concepts and language they could understand in the time.
-
This is as good a starting point as any -- http://www.hareidi.org/ref/Genesis1.htm
It already points to 4 generations of possible misinterpretation. It isn't a question of "guessing" missing portions -- it just ideas and concepts that don't carry from culture to culture. Like the mexican "chinga" -- it does not translate to English in any way shape or form. It is 100% culture-dependent. You can approximate but unless you understand the underlying concept, MEANING IS LOST.
Sorry, that is just Anthropology 101.
With the scrolls the sections are gone/missing or un readable. Some of the reasearchers would guess at the missing sections from the previous sections. They really diden't know.
Very interesting reading at the link. TY.
-
Teachers should teach that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Because He did. Everyone, in whatever position, should promote the truth.
This may not be exactly what evolutionists believe, but so be it. They, and their theory, certainly have enough problems to deal with.
-
Since I think the "garden" is allegorical it makes your question rhetorical. The garden and the tree of knowledge is ow God told His children to behave -- or else.
Mine is a very concrete question. How old is the Earth? You don't even have to be specific -- magnitude will do.
I think the "concrete" age of the Earth is allegorical.
-
Evidence of modern history suggested in the Bible is not evidence of ancient history (millions or billions of years prior). It is like saying "I found a bottlecap from 1964 -- there must have been bottle factories in 1192."
God was speaking to His children in concepts and language they could understand in the time.
As civilization is only a few thousand years old, it isn't surprising that the proofs of biblical cities are somewhat less old than the beginning of civilization. The Bible makes no pretense at accounting for millions and billions of years that didn't exist. It only accounts for the time since Creation.
-
I think the "concrete" age of the Earth is allegorical.
Very simple -- how OLD is the Earth using current time measurement? Hundreds, thousands, millions or billions?
Quit playing word games and answer the question. I have been 100% clear -- the Bible is an allegorical reference designed by God and written by many men over a relatively short time to tell us how He loves us and to describe in detail our relationship to Him. It is not a science text and contains little science (some can be inferred) since that was never its intent. The latter passages include some history, but that does not make it a historical text, else it would describe the Olmecs (for example).
Answer the question.
-
As civilization is only a few thousand years old, it isn't surprising that the proofs of biblical cities are somewhat less old than the beginning of civilization. The Bible makes no pretense at accounting for millions and billions of years that didn't exist. It only accounts for the time since Creation.
"It only accounts for the time since Creation."
Which was how long ago?
-
...
Answer the question.
I've been wondering when you would get around to doing just that.
-
"It only accounts for the time since Creation."
Which was how long ago?
Unless we know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before death began, there is no way to count. Scriptural counts give an estimate based on whenever Adam started counting his years, something that makes no sense for an immortal. So, the earth is as old as the best scriptural count plus whatever time Adam and Eve lived in the Garden. It could have been 2 days, it could have been a million years. When you die, ask them! They may remember.
-
Teachers should teach that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Because He did. Everyone, in whatever position, should promote the truth.
This may not be exactly what evolutionists believe, but so be it. They, and their theory, certainly have enough problems to deal with.
Yes, TToE has to deal with its problems the same way that astronomy has to explain the Red Shift and geology has to explain Pangea. Right?
Please explain how the Biblical story of creation is "better" than, say, this one:
First there were giants. The giants lived on the land and ate plants that they gathered. One day, when it was almost winter, a mother giant and a father giant had a baby girl. Her name was Sedna.
As the days got shorter, Sedna got bigger and bigger. Every day she got bigger. Soon she was huge - bigger than her giant mother and father. She got so big that there wasn't enough food for her anywhere. She got so hungry that she started to bite her mother and father's legs!
Well, that was too much for her parents. They managed to push Sedna into a blanket and between them they carried her to their canoe. It was dark but there was a moon to see by and they paddled the canoe out to sea. When they got way out in the middle of the ocean, where you couldn't even see the land, they dumped Sedna overboard into the cold water and left her to drown.
Inuit kayak
Inuit kayak (about 1890 AD)
That was that. They started to paddle their canoe home, feeling cold and ashamed of themselves for dumping their own daughter overboard. But they had just started when the canoe stopped - they couldn't seem to make it go no matter how hard they paddled. Oh no! They saw that Sedna's huge hands were holding their canoe and rocking it. She was going to toss them into the ocean and they would drown!
Inuit sea lion carving
Inuit carving of a sea lion
(American Museum of Natural History)
So Sedna's mother and father started to chop at Sedna's fingers with their sharp stone knives and they cut off her fingers, one by one. But as Sedna's big fingers splashed into the water, they changed into animals. One finger became a whale. One finger became a seal. One finger became a walrus. One became a salmon.
Sedna swam to the bottom of the ocean and stayed there. The fish built her a tent there to live in. She still lives there, and if we are hungry, we can ask Sedna to send us more food, even in the winter.
Will you tell the people who believe this to be origin of the Universe they are wrong? And on what basis?
-
Unless we know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before death began, there is no way to count. Scriptural counts give an estimate based on whenever Adam started counting his years, something that makes no sense for an immortal. So, the earth is as old as the best scriptural count plus whatever time Adam and Eve lived in the Garden. It could have been 2 days, it could have been a million years. When you die, ask them! They may remember.
The Bible tells us how old Adam lived -- do you now decry that figure?
-
I've been wondering when you would get around to doing just that.
Which question? You haven't posed any.
-
Which question? You haven't posed any.
...just the ones you ignored, but that's okay. I never really expected answers.
-
...just the ones you ignored, but that's okay. I never really expected answers.
The thread is long and the soul wearies -- ask again whatever clever little word game you think you can use to "trap" someone who both lives God and understands science.
Have at it little man.
-
I have yet to see any of the portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were anything close to the Bible. At least those that were NOT interpreted. I've only read transliterations without the "researchers" "guessing" at missing portions.
I would, however like to see the entire known scrolls done in the same way as in the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered".
Freedumb, can you point me to a transliteration of Genesis?
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained:
The complete text of Isaiah
36 Psalms
a large part of Leviticus
a paraphrase of Job
Murabba'at
a scroll with the last half of Joel and through Haggai
These are nearly complete, not tiny fragments.
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm
Not that the fragments are all that tiny...
http://www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com/scrolls.html
-
The Bible tells us how old Adam lived -- do you now decry that figure?
How does an immortal count his age?
-
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained:
The complete text of Isaiah
36 Psalms
a large part of Leviticus
a paraphrase of Job
Murabba'at
a scroll with the last half of Joel and through Haggai
These are nearly complete, not tiny fragments.
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm
Not that the fragments are all that tiny...
http://www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com/scrolls.html
So you admit that it is impossible for modern man to even see the original Bible in its context.
Thanks -- that helps my argument a lot.
-
How does an immortal count his age?
So you admit the Bible lied to you and did NOT specifically state the age of Adam when he died?
-
So you admit that it is impossible for modern man to even see the original Bible in its context.
Thanks -- that helps my argument a lot.
The Dead Sea Srolls proved that our current copy did not differ from ancient copies. The Bible has been carefully protected.
-
So you admit the Bible lied to you and did NOT specifically state the age of Adam when he died?
Admit? The Bible does not say how long Adam lived in the Garden. It does not say if his age was counted from Creation, or from the beginning of death. That's a lie? :lmao:
-
The Dead Sea Srolls proved that our current copy did not differ from ancient copies. The Bible has been carefully protected.
Please explain the difference between the word "kinds" in the closer to original Aramaic versus KJ -- and how much meaning is lost and where that meaning can be recouped. You only have to cross 4 languages and cultures across a few thousand years.
Feel free to Google -- but you will fail if you don't actually SPEAK Aramaic.
And I am waiting for how old you think the Earth is -- in real years. And, how old was Adam when he died? And what do we know from that figure?
This is really easy -- why do you dance so?
-
Admit? The Bible does not say how long Adam lived in the Garden. It does not say if his age was counted from Creation, or from the beginning of death. That's a lie? :lmao:
It sure did. It can be inferred from the Bible itself. If you can't do it (think Numbers and then go backwards into Genesis), then you are just sprinkling fairy dust.
-
It sure did. It can be inferred from the Bible itself. If you can't do it (think Numbers and then go backwards into Genesis), then you are just sprinkling fairy dust.
Cool. Quote the Scripture that tells how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, and the one that specifies his age was figured all during that deathless time, or only upon the point when he actually started to age.
-
Please explain the difference between the word "kinds" in the closer to original Aramaic versus KJ -- and how much meaning is lost and where that meaning can be recouped. You only have to cross 4 languages and cultures across a few thousand years.
Feel free to Google -- but you will fail if you don't actually SPEAK Aramaic.
And I am waiting for how old you think the Earth is -- in real years. And, how old was Adam when he died? And what do we know from that figure?
This is really easy -- why do you dance so?
Don't you mean READ Aramaic. :-) Now, you explain exactly how much of your knowledge is held to this "original language" standard. When you study evolution, you actually dig the bones? Run the tests? When you study astronomy, you travel to the stars? Or more "modern," when you buy a Sanyo, you read the manual in Japanese...because otherwise, you're going to miss some of the cultural differences, don't you know? And you learned German in case you ever drive a VW, right? Or do you do like everyone else and rely on the experts to tell you how things work and translate languages? :-)
(Oh, and for the age of the earth thing, which I've explained several times, it seems you don't even do so well in English.)
-
Cool. Quote the Scripture that tells how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, and the one that specifies his age was figured all during that deathless time, or only upon the point when he actually started to age.
Genesis 5:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the time that created God Adam, in the likeness of God he brought forth him.
2 Male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the time when they were created.
3 And lived Adam thirty and a hundred years and did bring forth a son in his own likeness, according to his image; and called his name Seth;
4 And were the days of Adam after he did bring forth Seth eight hundred years ; and he did bring forth sons and daughters;
~
5 And were all the days that Adam lived nine hundred years and thirty years; and he died.
And I didn't even have to use my GOOD Google-fu.
Let me give some lawyerly advice -- never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Now that you have been creamed -- HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? GIVE A NUMBER. Not rhetorical nonsense -- we have lug-nut for that -- a NUMBER. And, as I have so magnanimously stated in the past, you can just express it in magnitude.
-
Don't you mean READ Aramaic. :-) Now, you explain exactly how much of your knowledge is held to this "original language" standard. When you study evolution, you actually dig the bones? Run the tests? When you study astronomy, you travel to the stars? Or more "modern," when you buy a Sanyo, you read the manual in Japanese...because otherwise, you're going to miss some of the cultural differences, don't you know? And you learned German in case you ever drive a VW, right? Or do you do like everyone else and rely on the experts to tell you how things work and translate languages? :-)
(Oh, and for the age of the earth thing, which I've explained several times, it seems you don't even do so well in English.)
So, now you say that physics is analagous to an owner's manual? It is YOU -- not me -- who asserts that the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God. I therefore ask for simple examples of how that LITERAL word has been accurately translated across multiple languages and thousands of years. The onus is not on me, but you.
So, please tell us all how your statement that the Bible has been accurately translated from its last known (I will grant you antiquity since I am feeling magnanimnous and you are getting killed here) language (Aramaic) to English by tracing a single word: "Kind" across those translations.
MY contention is the Bible is how God wants us to interact with him and is a theological text which is quite properly culturally interpreted. There is no cultural normative for "Radon gives off x.y.z energy over a z.y.x lifespan."
I have asked so little of you -- such simple questions. Let me help you:
The earth is XXXXX years old. Your job is to replace the XXXXX with a number.
Adam was YYY years old when he died. Your job is to replace YYY with a number (supplied above).
The Etymology of the word "kind" as first defined in te Bible in both Genesis I and Genesis II from Aramaic to KJE is UUU to III to ZZZZ. Your job is to supply the conext and meaning each step of the way. If you need help, I can provide the etymological tree.
Lets review:
YOU say the Bible is literal. You need to answer the 3 questions above to support your contention.
I say the Bible is allegorical and a liturgical/theological text -- my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.
Simple.
Answer my questions or just admit you are a YEC nutjob.
-
Do you want me to explain how the Bible's account of creation is better than Sedna, et al? Are you kidding?
The Bible is the word of God. As far as I know, no one has ever made such a claim for Sedna, or the Gilgamesh Epic, or Norse mythology, or for any such thing. If you are familar with the history of science, you know that the Bible is the impetus for modern science. You also know that many scientists were committed Christians. Like Isaac Newton, for example.
If you don't think that the theory of evolution has problems, then you are either ignorant or just plain dishonest. Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your remarks. :mental:
-
The thread is long and the soul wearies -- ask again whatever clever little word game you think you can use to "trap" someone who both lives God and understands science.
Have at it little man.
You're a big boy, so I bet you can find them. There were no "clever little word game"s.
If you even hint at insults in this thread or any other in this forum, it will be locked so fast your head will spin. Consider this your only warning.
-
Do you want me to explain how the Bible's account of creation is better than Sedna, et al? Are you kidding?
The Bible is the word of God. As far as I know, no one has ever made such a claim for Sedna, or the Gilgamesh Epic, or Norse mythology, or for any such thing.
So the Christian account is superior because you say so. I will inform the billions of Hindus and Bhuddisst you have decreed their religion bogus.
If you are familar with the history of science, you know that the Bible is the impetus for modern science. You also know that many scientists were committed Christians. Like Isaac Newton, for example.
My contention is there is no conflict between science and Christianity. Science tells us how things work. The Bible tells us how to deal with God and each other.
If you don't think that the theory of evolution has problems, then you are either ignorant or just plain dishonest. Please tell me how I have misinterpreted your remarks. :mental:
Name them. Please be very specific. Also, please be prepared to name the problems with The Theroy of Gravity, String Theory, and 2VL in the Relation Model.
-
You're a big boy, so I bet you can find them. There were no "clever little word game"s.
If you even hint at insults in this thread or any other in this forum, it will be locked so fast your head will spin. Consider this your only warning.
Ah -- you use your mod stick when cornered. I am still waiting for an answer.
-
Ah -- you use your mod stick when cornered.
I'm hardly "cornered". Give me a reason, and I sure will. Count on it.
I am still waiting for an answer.
So am I.
-
I'm hardly "cornered". Give me a reason, and I sure will. Count on it.So am I.
I guess that ends this part of the discussion. I have happily repeated my statements when anyone on the thread needs it.
You won't so I guess you have dealt yourself out.
-
I guess that ends this part of the discussion. I have happily repeated my statements when anyone on the thread needs it.
You won't so I guess you have dealt yourself out.
Sorry, I left my silver spoon at home. :-)
-
So the Christian account is superior because you say so. I will inform the billions of Hindus and Bhuddisst you have decreed their religion bogus.
My contention is there is no conflict between science and Christianity. Science tells us how things work. The Bible tells us how to deal with God and each other.
Name them. Please be very specific. Also, please be prepared to name the problems with The Theroy of Gravity, String Theory, and 2VL in the Relation Model.
You want me to name the problems with the Theory of Evolution? Again, you must be joking. Well, here we go, to name two. (I trust you know there are many more. I refer you to the books by Michael Behe, Paul Johnson, and the DVD entitled, "Expelled.")
First, what does it mean to say "the survival of the fittest"? What are "the fittest"? Those who survive, it turns out. So, in other words, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are those who are the fittest. That's called a tautology.
Second, there is a lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional species. Darwin told us to expect to see this, if he was correct. But we don't, so he wasn't. That's why Stephen Jay Gould has his "quantum leap" between species idea. But there is no record in the fossils of that, either. Gould jumped the shark on that one.
By the way, since turnabout is fair play, please name the problems with the Bible's account of origins. And, oh, be very specific.
-
Genesis 5:
And I didn't even have to use my GOOD Google-fu.
Let me give some lawyerly advice -- never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Now that you have been creamed -- HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? GIVE A NUMBER. Not rhetorical nonsense -- we have lug-nut for that -- a NUMBER. And, as I have so magnanimously stated in the past, you can just express it in magnitude.
Strangely enough, the verses you quoted answered neither question.
-
So, now you say that physics is analagous to an owner's manual? It is YOU -- not me -- who asserts that the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God. I therefore ask for simple examples of how that LITERAL word has been accurately translated across multiple languages and thousands of years. The onus is not on me, but you.
So, please tell us all how your statement that the Bible has been accurately translated from its last known (I will grant you antiquity since I am feeling magnanimnous and you are getting killed here) language (Aramaic) to English by tracing a single word: "Kind" across those translations.
I'm very sorry that you can't understand the simple point that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the care with which the Biblical scrolls were copied. If you refuse to understand simple English, I can certainly see why you have trouble with Aramaic.
MY contention is the Bible is how God wants us to interact with him and is a theological text which is quite properly culturally interpreted. There is no cultural normative for "Radon gives off x.y.z energy over a z.y.x lifespan."
I have asked so little of you -- such simple questions. Let me help you:
The earth is XXXXX years old. Your job is to replace the XXXXX with a number.
Adam was YYY years old when he died. Your job is to replace YYY with a number (supplied above).
The earth is as old as the best Scriptural addition of years, plus the time Adam spent in the Garden - when he was immortal and unaging, before death entered the world. Now, your job is to tell me how many years Adam spent in the Garden, and to find the scripture that states his age was counted from Creation, or from when he started to age.
The Etymology of the word "kind" as first defined in te Bible in both Genesis I and Genesis II from Aramaic to KJE is UUU to III to ZZZZ. Your job is to supply the conext and meaning each step of the way. If you need help, I can provide the etymological tree.
Lets review:
YOU say the Bible is literal. You need to answer the 3 questions above to support your contention.
I say the Bible is allegorical and a liturgical/theological text -- my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.
Simple.
Answer my questions or just admit you are a YEC nutjob.
Oh, I am definitely in the Young Earth crowd. No doubt about that. God tells us how He created the world, and I believe Him. I find it hard to believe that anyone doubts it. God is a timeless being Who knew exactly who you were, and how you would think, when He was giving the account of the Creation to Moses. Yet you believe that Moses, who likely had the best possible education for his time, was too stupid to understand "the real truth," so God lied to him. You also believe that Christ, Who was with God during the creation, left all those mistakes and lies in the OT and didn't fix any of them, but rather went around quoting them as though they were true. (Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. )
I don't know what kind of god you believe in, one whose words you can pick through and discard at will, one who couldn't understand where science would lead humans, one who deliberately lied and whose son continued the lies... but I find I do not at all understand why you'd bother to follow him. :???: :???:
-
So, now you say that physics is analagous to an owner's manual?
I am still waiting for your list of knowledge that you hold to the same standard as the translation of Scripture. Exactly how did you learn what you know about evolution? The Theroy of Gravity? String Theory? 2VL in the Relation Model? And please recall that reference to experts is not sufficient, you must have "learned the basic language and done the studies" yourself.
-
You want me to name the problems with the Theory of Evolution? Again, you must be joking. Well, here we go, to name two. (I trust you know there are many more. I refer you to the books by Michael Behe, Paul Johnson, and the DVD entitled, "Expelled.")
First, what does it mean to say "the survival of the fittest"? What are "the fittest"? Those who survive, it turns out. So, in other words, the fittest are those who survive, and the survivors are those who are the fittest. That's called a tautology.
Second, there is a lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional species. Darwin told us to expect to see this, if he was correct. But we don't, so he wasn't. That's why Stephen Jay Gould has his "quantum leap" between species idea. But there is no record in the fossils of that, either. Gould jumped the shark on that one.
By the way, since turnabout is fair play, please name the problems with the Bible's account of origins. And, oh, be very specific.
You are tossing softballs.
First, what does it mean to say "the survival of the fittest"? What are "the fittest"?
That is not a tautology when applied to the science of the matter. Aspirin provides pain relief. It does so by alleviating pain. So the pain-relieving condition of aspirin is tautological?
And nowhere did Darwin ever use the term "survival of the fittest" although as a general layperson's description of the the stochastic nature of evolution. The inability to understand stochastic processes is pretty standard and a very low-level "argument."l
Second, there is a lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional species
Lack of evidence means nothing other than breaks in sequences. If I give you 1,3,7,11..37 does that mean that the intervening numbers cannot be inferred? Please -- tell me which fossils are missing? There are only several billion of them -- take your time. I will even give you a mulligan -- show which fossils do NOT support the progression of evolution as understood by modern science?
By the way, since turnabout is fair play, please name the problems with the Bible's account of origins. And, oh, be very specific
The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces. It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old. The Bible doesn't explain the difference between Newtonian approaches to physics versus Einsteinan ones. It does not explain why things moving away from a center shift into the red part of the spectrum and those closer to that center stay in the violet spectrum. It does not describe why light is the only known form that is made of particles yet move sin waves.
Unless it does -- please provide the Biblical citations which describe these, the most basic of science observations.
(Nor does it need to. The Bible is God's statement to His children on His relationship to them. It does not profess itself to be a science text.)
-
Strangely enough, the verses you quoted answered neither question.
The verses I quoted state the age of Adam.
Please answer the simple question I posed -- unlike others, I will restate it: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
-
I am still waiting for your list of knowledge that you hold to the same standard as the translation of Scripture. Exactly how did you learn what you know about evolution? The Theroy of Gravity? String Theory? 2VL in the Relation Model? And please recall that reference to experts is not sufficient, you must have "learned the basic language and done the studies" yourself.
I learned about science by researching it. I studied the subjects. I have direct knowledge of the subject matter.
Your attempt to redirect the discussion is amusing. Please tell me how the term "kind" is used across all the published interpretations of the Bible -- and I have been nice enough to let you keep it to 4 languages and given you enough time to Google up a bunch of information.
I remind you that it is YOU who said the Bible should be taken literally. I have no onus on me, since I have made no such claim. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then please literately translate the one simple term (from genesis) from its inception to KJ (which has a few leaps to make it to modern English -- but I continue to be nice).
Do it -- or just admit you can't take the Bible literally, since you can't even literally describe a single word's etymology. Even given I ave you the starting point (which ain't) and the ending point (which ain't).
If the Bible is literal, then give me the literal intepretation.
This is easy stuff.
-
The verses I quoted state the age of Adam.
Please answer the simple question I posed -- unlike others, I will restate it: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
The verses did not answer the questions I asked. Why do you keep ducking such simple questions?
-
I learned about science by researching it. I studied the subjects. I have direct knowledge of the subject matter.
Your attempt to redirect the discussion is amusing. Please tell me how the term "kind" is used across all the published interpretations of the Bible -- and I have been nice enough to let you keep it to 4 languages and given you enough time to Google up a bunch of information.
I remind you that it is YOU who said the Bible should be taken literally. I have no onus on me, since I have made no such claim. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then please literately translate the one simple term (from genesis) from its inception to KJ (which has a few leaps to make it to modern English -- but I continue to be nice).
Do it -- or just admit you can't take the Bible literally, since you can't even literally describe a single word's etymology. Even given I ave you the starting point (which ain't) and the ending point (which ain't).
If the Bible is literal, then give me the literal intepretation.
This is easy stuff.
Studied it? In the original language? Dug the bones? Ran the tests? Developed the experiments to prove them. Why do you believe other subjects that are merely explained by experts? How can you take science literally when there is so much of it that requires the explanations and teachings of people who gain a financial advantage from their work?
-
You are tossing softballs.
That is not a tautology when applied to the science of the matter. Aspirin provides pain relief. It does so by alleviating pain. So the pain-relieving condition of aspirin is tautological?
And nowhere did Darwin ever use the term "survival of the fittest" although as a general layperson's description of the the stochastic nature of evolution. The inability to understand stochastic processes is pretty standard and a very low-level "argument."l
Lack of evidence means nothing other than breaks in sequences. If I give you 1,3,7,11..37 does that mean that the intervening numbers cannot be inferred? Please -- tell me which fossils are missing? There are only several billion of them -- take your time. I will even give you a mulligan -- show which fossils do NOT support the progression of evolution as understood by modern science?
The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces. It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old. The Bible doesn't explain the difference between Newtonian approaches to physics versus Einsteinan ones. It does not explain why things moving away from a center shift into the red part of the spectrum and those closer to that center stay in the violet spectrum. It does not describe why light is the only known form that is made of particles yet move sin waves.
Unless it does -- please provide the Biblical citations which describe these, the most basic of science observations.
(Nor does it need to. The Bible is God's statement to His children on His relationship to them. It does not profess itself to be a science text.)
The analogy with aspirin is a false one. But you knew that, didn't you? Pain is something that can be defined apart from it's alleviation. The case with the Darwinian survivors is different. The tautology is hanging around your neck. And the ad hominen suggestion that I am a simpleton for pointing that out to you does not help your argument.
I am glad you you noticed the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That's real progress. Now, if you will admit that scientific conclusions need to be based on evidence, we will get someplace.
Sorry, but your attack on the Bible's account of origins cannot be sustained. The Bible accounts for origins, not everything that happened after the origin. But no theory does that.
By the way, you seem to be forgetting something. If we cannot depend on the Bible, its value as a guide for divine to human, and human to human, relations is very doubtful. As tyrants across the ages have discovered, the Bible--in all its integrity--is an impediment to totalitarianism. Undermine the Bible, and you remove that impediment. The theory of evolution has social and political implications you are unwittingly promoting.
-
The analogy with aspirin is a false one. But you knew that, didn't you? Pain is something that can be defined apart from it's alleviation. The case with the Darwinian survivors is different. The tautology is hanging around your neck. And the ad hominen suggestion that I am a simpleton for pointing that out to you does not help your argument.
IOW, yoiu define "tautology" to mean "anything that defeats my baseless argument." -- I guess that debating children older than 11 provides massive logic problems for you.
I am glad you you noticed the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That's real progress. Now, if you will admit that scientific conclusions need to be based on evidence, we will get someplace.
And yet you cannot even suggest a simple alternative.
Sorry, but your attack on the Bible's account of origins cannot be sustained. The Bible accounts for origins, not everything that happened after the origin. But no theory does that.
I was very specific -- your collective "so's your mama" response is very humorous -- and fails on it's face.
By the way, you seem to be forgetting something. If we cannot depend on the Bible, its value as a guide for divine to human, and human to human, relations is very doubtful. As tyrants across the ages have discovered, the Bible--in all its integrity--is an impediment to totalitarianism. Undermine the Bible, and you remove that impediment. The theory of evolution has social and political implications you are unwittingly promoting.
I have been very specific on my perspective that the Bible is a guide for how God wants us to interact with Him, His Son, and each other. I have supplied direct argumentation on how this works. Your ignoring this is merely blindfolding and doesn't even come close to an argument by any and all definitions of "argument." Hint: gainsaying isn't argumentation.
-
Studied it? In the original language? Dug the bones? Ran the tests? Developed the experiments to prove them. Why do you believe other subjects that are merely explained by experts? How can you take science literally when there is so much of it that requires the explanations and teachings of people who gain a financial advantage from their work?
Still waiting for the answers, Mrs. Smith:
How old is the Earth? Thousands, Millions, Billions?
What does the word "kind" -- as used in the earliest known Bible written in Aramaic -- mean? How has its meaning changed across the basic 4 languages and if not,or if so, why?
What is the importance of the word "kind" to Biblical literailsts?
These are easy. I even provided a simple fill in the blanks form upthread.
Please answer them.
And as a sop to your silly question (because I really am a very generous guy) --- are you suggesting that all published scientific data must be personally verified? That if I don't see an electron that means electricity doesn't exist? That there is a massive conspiracy that is creating billions of fake bones and also faking their strata and age methods?
OK, that is a new question but you opened the door.
I have made this so easy for you. Please answer.
-
IOW, yoiu define "tautology" to mean "anything that defeats my baseless argument." -- I guess that debating children older than 11 provides massive logic problems for you.
And yet you cannot even suggest a simple alternative.
I was very specific -- your collective "so's your mama" response is very humorous -- and fails on it's face.
I have been very specific on my perspective that the Bible is a guide for how God wants us to interact with Him, His Son, and each other. I have supplied direct argumentation on how this works. Your ignoring this is merely blindfolding and doesn't even come close to an argument by any and all definitions of "argument." Hint: gainsaying isn't argumentation.
I certainly did not define tautology as anythng that defeats my argument. But you knew that. Why not simply deal with the real issue?
I did not say anything about your mama.
Best of all, I am glad you will not try to refute my assertion about the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That is progress. Please remember how science works.
Sorry, but unless the Bible is trustworthy in all things it asserts, it is trustworthy in none. The social and political implications of a belief that God created man in His own image are very different from the implications that flow from a belief that he is a distant cousin of a virus.
Since you don't think I can argue with a 12 year old, I will not try to inform you further. Thanks for playing.
-
I certainly did not define tautology as anythng that defeats my argument. But you knew that. Why not simply deal with the real issue?
You defined tautology as the result of the scientific method. We see fossils (did I mention there are BILLIONS of them?) that are in strata that are consistent. If you understood how science works, you would know the difference between evidenciary support and tautology.
I did not say anything about your mama.
I was trying to help you see the error in your attempt at reasoning.
Best of all, I am glad you will not try to refute my assertion about the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That is progress. Please remember how science works.
Your assertion did not posit a "lack of evidence." It merely suggested that there is not a 100% evidential link across the millions of years of evolution. Unless and until we dig up every single animal that ever existed, we cannot satisfy your rather insipid and certainly unscientific critera for "evidence." I note that you ignore my simple (well, for most people) example to help you understand the issue.
Sorry, but unless the Bible is trustworthy in all things it asserts, it is trustworthy in none. The social and political implications of a belief that God created man in His own image are very different from the implications that flow from a belief that he is a distant cousin of a virus.
IOW, you can't find Biblical references that make it a definitive source for even the simplest of scientific fundamentals. If the Bible is a scientific source, why does it not tell us about these simple and critical scientific principles?
Since you don't think I can argue with a 12 year old, I will not try to inform you further. Thanks for playing.
Your response hasn't upgraded anyone's evaluation of your "skills."
-
You defined tautology as the result of the scientific method.
I did nothing of the kind.
We see fossils (did I mention there are BILLIONS of them?) that are in strata that are consistent.
No one doubts that. What I said, and what you cannot deny, and refuse (wisely) to try to deny, is that there is a lack of evidence in the fossils for TRANSITITIONAL species. If you want to promote the theory of evolution with the attitude of reigious fanaticism I have witnessed in your posts, that's fine. But quit trying to assume the role of a student of science while doing so. The lack of evidence is the problem.
If you understood how science works, you would know the difference between evidenciary support and tautology.
Wow. Amazing.
IOW, you can't find Biblical references that make it a definitive source for even the simplest of scientific fundamentals.
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I can give you scads. Please refer to Genesis 1 and 2, for starters.
If the Bible is a scientific source, why does it not tell us about these simple and critical scientific principles?
What simple and critical scientific principles do you mean?
Your response hasn't upgraded anyone's evaluation of your "skills."
Okay. So now you are speaking for everyone who has seen my reponse. And you were quite right, in an earlier post, when you said I am unable to debate with 12 year olds. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.
-
The analogy with aspirin is a false one. But you knew that, didn't you? Pain is something that can be defined apart from it's alleviation. The case with the Darwinian survivors is different. The tautology is hanging around your neck. And the ad hominen suggestion that I am a simpleton for pointing that out to you does not help your argument.
I am glad you you noticed the lack of evidence in the fossil record. That's real progress. Now, if you will admit that scientific conclusions need to be based on evidence, we will get someplace.
Sorry, but your attack on the Bible's account of origins cannot be sustained. The Bible accounts for origins, not everything that happened after the origin. But no theory does that.
By the way, you seem to be forgetting something. If we cannot depend on the Bible, its value as a guide for divine to human, and human to human, relations is very doubtful. As tyrants across the ages have discovered, the Bible--in all its integrity--is an impediment to totalitarianism. Undermine the Bible, and you remove that impediment. The theory of evolution has social and political implications you are unwittingly promoting.
:clap:
-
I did nothing of the kind.
You stated that when cross-referenced evidence produces reinforcement it creates a tautology. It was your statement, not mine.
No one doubts that. What I said, and what you cannot deny, and refuse (wisely) to try to deny, is that there is a lack of evidence in the fossils for TRANSITITIONAL species. If you want to promote the theory of evolution with the attitude of reigious fanaticism I have witnessed in your posts, that's fine. But quit trying to assume the role of a student of science while doing so. The lack of evidence is the problem.
The concept of a "transitional species" is one that ignorant laymen use as a straw man. There is no such concept in science. As I have patiently explained to you, evolution is a stochastic process -- every fossil is transitional.
How in the world did you come to that conclusion? I can give you scads. Please refer to Genesis 1 and 2, for starters.
I must have missed how genesis 1 and 2 explained that light traveles in waves yet is made of particles, travels at apx. 300,000,000 m/sin a vacuum. Nor did I see the effect that gravity has on that. Please, tell me which passage covers this. And, while you are at it, you can tell me which passage discusses the scientific merits and flaws in Newtonian (obviously this would be called Biblical) Physics vs. Einsteinian (which we should also call Biblical) physics.
What simple and critical scientific principles do you mean?
See above. It is super simple.
Okay. So now you are speaking for everyone who has seen my reponse. And you were quite right, in an earlier post, when you said I am unable to debate with 12 year olds. Therefore, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.
It sucks to lose in public, doesn't it? At least smart ignorant people don't parade their ignorance proudly.
-
..... my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.
What does "His Word" ask you to do?
... the Bible is an allegorical reference designed by God and written by many men over a relatively short time to tell us how He loves us and to describe in detail our relationship to Him.
And what these "many men" wrote could just be what they made up on their own and in reality have nothing to do with God or any relationship man has with him. If not, why not?
.
-
Still waiting for the answers, Mrs. Smith:
How old is the Earth? Thousands, Millions, Billions?
I'd love to, as soon as you find those scriptures I requested. From all I've read, the Earth is a few thousand years older than Noah's flood, but until I know what time period passed from Creation to the beginning of death, I can't count the years.
What does the word "kind" -- as used in the earliest known Bible written in Aramaic -- mean? How has its meaning changed across the basic 4 languages and if not,or if so, why?
What is the importance of the word "kind" to Biblical literailsts?
These are easy. I even provided a simple fill in the blanks form upthread.
Please answer them.
Obviously you are very interested in the word "Kind." Unfortunately, I don't feel like doing your homework for you. I guess you can research your question while I bake cookies with my daughter.
And as a sop to your silly question (because I really am a very generous guy) --- are you suggesting that all published scientific data must be personally verified? That if I don't see an electron that means electricity doesn't exist? That there is a massive conspiracy that is creating billions of fake bones and also faking their strata and age methods?
OK, that is a new question but you opened the door.
I have made this so easy for you. Please answer.
Are you suggesting that you, personally, accept the word of experts in science while refusing to accept the word of experts in Biblical translation, languages and culture? I'm shocked!
-
The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces. It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old.
(Nor does it need to. The Bible is God's statement to His children on His relationship to them. It does not profess itself to be a science text.)
The Bible is not a science text, but neither can science exist outside the creation in Genesis. No creation, no science. God was good enough to give us a mind that can research and find the rules He created. However, He also told us how He began this creation. He also explained the strata. With all the land covered in water for a year, obviously it settled in strata as it dried. Eventually, scientists will discover enough to come around in a great circle and have to admit that Genesis is completely correct. Until that time, while much may be correct, there are still gaping errors in our "knowledge." Just as people will be horrified by our slaughter of unborn humans in the future, they will be vastly amused by all the mistakes in our science...just as we are amused by the idea that the world could be flat or the Earth stationary in space. OF course, by that time, we'll both be dead...and we'll find it pretty amusing, also.
-
The Bible does not explain strata, nor does it explain microbe traces. It does not describe the animals which left behind fossil traces that are billions of years old.
No it does not. But what God did...was to populate this earth with people smart enough to understand those things and teach it to the rest of us.
-
Asimov wrote two books on the Bible, new and old Testament giving the factual/historical/archelogical evidence that goes with the passages. And in man y cases, the reasons rthat things appear as they do in the Bible. Very interesting and educational.
The Bible was never written to be the literal word of God as an entire text, but as an alagorical , moral, lesson touching on a wide variety of situations AND an oral tradition of the 7 Tribes of Israel , written after writing was invented, to be the glue of their civilization and tradition.
Leave the literalism to more primitive religions that demands slavish, unthinking obediance to form and taboo, the ANTHISIS of the things Jesus stood for. There are several parables that demonstrate this clearly. As He saw it necessary to repeat this lesson art least FOUR TIMES (and St. Paul at least once more) , He understood the natural affinity of humanity to cling to these anchors of faith, and the dangers of intollerance when we do.
-
So the Christian account is superior because you say so. I will inform the billions of Hindus and Bhuddisst you have decreed their religion bogus.
-- my burden is merely to give God what He asks of me based on my understanding of His Word.
OK, this answers a lot.
I run into people like this before. They find out I go to church and want to know where, so I tell them and why I’ve chosen to go there. When I ask them where they go they tell me “Oh, I worship God in my own way.†So what we have here is just an extension of that. It might not be perfect in its description, but it’s really, really close.
What they believe for all practical purposes is that it doesn’t really matter how one comes to God, that everyone has their own path, and if your path is 180 degrees different from someone else’s path, that’s all right. If “Christianity†is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK. If “Judaism†is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK. If “Islam†is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK. If “Buddha†is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK. If “Shinto†is your path that takes you to God, that’s OK. If your path is something completely different than any of those, then that’s OK. IOW, one comes to God “based on my understanding,†whatever you’ve determined that understanding should be.
Like I said, there are variations on this concept, but that’s basically it.
No, not interested. In fact, that type of outlook isn’t really “religion,†and this is the Religion Forum, so it doesn't really belong here. I’m not even sure where to categorize that viewpoint, but the last designation which would be assigned to it would be that of “religion.â€
.
-
This augments an earlier poll, taken in England about two years ago, that showed something like 63% of all Englishmen do not believe in the theory of evolution.
As England is rated as the "most secular," least-church-going, least Christian-affiliation, society in all of Europe, one can't blame "Christian 'fundamentalists'" for this.
Sorry for bumping an old thread... I havent read the whole thing so I don't know if this was addressed... but I just wanted to clear up a misconception here...
More scientific surveys show that acceptance of evolution among the general populace of the UK is very strong... and indeed in most western countries. The UK tops 70% acceptance.
I would expect it to decline somewhat as time marches on thanks to the diffuse of Islam through Western Europe. They generally don't take too kindly to Darwinian ideas..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html
-
Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain. How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze? If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?
-
Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain. How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze? If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?
...and from what did the moneky wrench evolve? :fuelfire: :uhsure:
-
...and from what did the moneky wrench evolve? :fuelfire: :uhsure:
Pliers.
-
Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain. How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze? If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...
A common misconception... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13687-evolution-myths-evolution-promotes-the-survival-of-species.html
Species go extinct all the time.
doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?
While not thouroughly explained as of yet... it really doesnt
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
-
Here's something the Crevo's have never been able to explain. How does Homosexuality fit into their thought process that we evolved from the primordial ooze? If according to them...everything is about us being an evolving every improving species...doesn't homosexuality kinda throw a monkey wrench into their "theory"?
What's a Crevo? That conflates Creationist and Evolution. It is used on the Internet to describe the arguments between those who understand science and those who would substitute religion for same.
-
What's a Crevo? That conflates Creationist and Evolution. It is used on the Internet to describe the arguments between those who understand science and those who would substitute religion for same.
Sorry fingers got ahead of my brain. should have been "Evo's.
As in the Evolutionists. *blech*
-
Sorry fingers got ahead of my brain. should have been "Evo's.
As in the Evolutionists. *blech*
Ah -- and I assume you understand the response provided above?
-
What's a Crevo? That conflates Creationist and Evolution. It is used on the Internet to describe the arguments between those who understand science and those who would substitute religion for same.
What's the term for those who understand religion and substitute science for same?
:-)