Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 8 of 13)

There is after all hard evidence, refuted only by the religious and their brain-washed scientists, to support evolution.

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the existance of a god and damn little to support the supposed existance of the so-called son there-of.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Oh and here is something else that is interesting:
Tell me if this quote from WebShaman doesn't sound a little creationist.

Quote:
Actually, it does all matter. Either god used a system to create everything (and it is logically explainable), or he just "did it". In the latter case, any kooky theory applies, because god can "do anything". And I mean ANY theory...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example. God is just causing us to perceive it as something else!

If your wondering where I got it from check the Emaculate Revelation thread

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

^ Your point, please?

quote:

---

Tell me if this quote from WebShaman doesn't sound a little creationist.

---

Uh....nope. Sure doesn't.

Is there a point involved somehow?

OK, if you believe in the literal translation of the Bible, answer this:

God made Adam, then He made Eve from Adam's rib.
Then Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, and Cain slew Abel.
Then Cain and his wife had Enoch.
Then Adam and Eve had Seth.
Then Seth and his wife had Enos.
And of course there were many generations after that.
BUT, where did Cain's and Seth's (and Enoch's and Enos's, etc.) wives come from?????
There is no mention of that in the Bible, so how does a literal translation resolve this?

^ Actually, there is mention of such in the bible, depending on what version (source) you read! I have read that Cain "went into the land of Nod, and took a wife". Apparently, the people of Nod were not really considered real people.

Of course, a literal reading of such precludes that there were any other humans around.

This sort of catagorizing of who is a "real" person is quite common among most aboriginal tribes. Most of the aboriginal peoples describe themselves as "The People". All others are then by default "not of The People", or not really human (they are not like us). That makes it much easier to treat them worse, kill them, and to drive them away.

That is actually an acceptable piece of information. If you read the OT the only "real people" mentioned were the Jews everyone else was not consided a real person.

Taking this even further, if we have the idea that the old testimate only talked of creation, in reference to the Jews. Then the creation story could be in refrence only to the jewish people, and that the areas created were only those of the jewish people, outside of this sphere, was not considered "the world."

If taken in this context the story becomes very believable. I can easily believe that say Isreal was created in 7 days. There are much larger areas that have been "created" in less time.

But, I doubt that this theory would be considered, because even if it fit the world view at the time when the story was told, and recorded, it does not fit peoples current world view. Many people can't accept that the bible needs to be taken in context. I don't know why, since when you are reading anything else you must take it in context.

But hell, the bible is the direct word of god. Its not like the NT is a complilation of different authors each with a different interpretation, and even written by those not MMLJ. It definately has no contridictions, no missing pieces of information. There is no wiggle room when reading it, there is no stated ideal that is debatable based on merit, And even more important, the god written about never changes his mind.

The bible is a strict technical document, which gives you the complete set of instructions by which you can live your life, without needing to make any kind of judgement on your own.

Dan @ Code Town

The creation story cannot be just about the Jews, because there was nothing, not even the Earth, before God created it. And the Bible doesn't mention God creating any other people. Lots of animals, but no other people. So a literal interpretation does not allow for any other people to exist.

The Bible says:

quote:

---

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch

---

This is the first mention of anyone outside of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.
So where did this wife come from?

Actually briggle, WarMage is right here - if one accepts that it is a literal view of only the jews - then the "world" would be that of only the jews. So it could all just mean "their" world, etc. And the other "people" would not be people - they would be animals.

But it doesn't say anything like this in the bible - purely conjecture on our parts here. A literal translation from what is in the bible precludes the existence of other people.

As an answer to your question, it depends on how one translates the passages there. Some translate it to mean
"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
And Cain took a wife (from Nod) and she conceived, and bare Enoch."

So even though the people of Nod were not "of The People" (obviously) they were apparently able to breed with "The People".

Which leads to another interesting question - if only "The People" are truly human, then the other peoples at that time would not have been born into sin, seeing as they had never violated God's Laws, in that sense. And that, in turn, leads us to another interesting question - does that mean that other peoples did survive the Flood? After all, if only the jews are considered "The People" and the others animals, then at least two of them would have been aboard the Ark, right?

Hehe...

I think that goes onto several tangents which are far beyond the scope of either a literal interpretation of the bible, or a reasonable discussion of it's meaning.

Genesis clearly states that god created 'the heavens and the earth', etc., which does not leave open the possibility of it referring to only the limited environment of the jews or any other group of people in a literal reading.

FWIW.

The gaps in plausibility mentioned by briggl are just that - gaps. Lack of consideration for continuity in the telling of a story. It is quite possible that there are parts of the story lost to history which covered these things...

There are hundreds of plausible explanations, but not if we are to take the bible as literal and infallible.

Yep, DL44 knows what I'm talking about. I am not looking for an answer from a reasonable person, but rather from someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I understand that. I was just commenting on WarMage's point.

quote:

---

There are hundreds of plausible explanations, but not if we are to take the bible as literal and infallible.

---

And I agree with this statement 100%.

So, Gideon, I was hoping that you, being such a big proponent of the literal interpretation of the Bible, would give us your answer to where these women came from.

The silence is deafening...perhaps he is praying for the answer?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Fossil Reanalysis Pushes Back Origin of Homo sapiens

Whoops! Well that surely puts the YECs under even more pressure!

Especially this :

quote:

---

The results, published today in the journal Nature, push back the emergence of our species by nearly 35,000 years.

---

Note that the Argon dating method was used here.

160,000 or 190,000 years it's still much more than the ~6,000 of the Earth ... according to the YECs.

Yes, but the measuring of this with a better measuring system the Argon method), has supported the results of the radioactive dating being old (older than the YECs allow! )

The radioactive dating system (carbon dating, etc) was heavily criticised by the YECs - the Argon method is much, much more accurate, as one can see and has pused the date even further back, making a YEC stance even more desperate in face of the facts.

Facts and faith have never had any commonality. Even as you read this some YEC type is preparing a critique of the argon method which will definitively prove the earth is in fact +/- 5800 years of age and that argon is not in fact a gas but the figment of some scientist's imagination. Said scientist being in the pay of the ungodly.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Yes, but every new bit of fact, every new method, etc just stretches the YEC postion thinner, and thinner. Eventually, it will snap (i.e. most will realize, it is an intenuable position).

Ya got that right. The tension is such now, one can hear it humming.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I can't believe this thread is still alive! I was participating back in November '04! Sheesh!

I have to jump in on this point:

quote:

---

WarMage said:

That is actually an acceptable piece of information. If you read the OT the only "real people" mentioned were the Jews everyone else was not consided a real person.

---

Warmage, please point out where you're seeing this. Where does it talk about "real people" and "unreal people"? WS, you too since you mentioned it first I think.

The OT is extraordinary because of how it does NOT make this distinction between peoples. Remember the "eye for an eye" concept? That was revolutionary in the sense that it equated your eye with the other person's eye. Your life is just as valuable as the stranger. This was not a common view in the cultures of that day where human life was not valued for all people groups and even within a people group.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

First of all... I do believe in God because I can see no way around it...

If you believe that means I use God as an explanation to waht I do not understand... then You might be right.

Second... I will not rule out the fact that it is God who created the world THROUGH Evolution...

Third.. If we use God to explain what we do not understand... how do you know that you aren't using science to explain what you do not understand. By that I mean that if we do not understand "miracles" and use god as an explanation... then how do you know that science is not jsut as much of an explanation to the same problem. Both have proof: God has the bible and personal experiences; and Science has this "Physchical Evidence".

Fourth... I believe God is very real because science can no less explain miracles than God can. When I was growing up, the boy that lived next to me, Michael, suffered from rheumatoid arthritis in both hands. By the time he was 9 he could not move 7 seven fingers and the Doctors had no way to save his hands. One sunday at church, all the deacons put their hands on him and prayed for him. The next day, he everyone of his fingers, and today he plays the guitar.

I can explain it only with God. WHich is what you're saying. BUt, you have no proof whatso-ever that God didn't do it. This might not make sense to you, but maybe you should understand the concept of Faith. Faith teaches me that we as human beings are different from monkeys and all the other creatures of this earth because we have souls. TO think, to question our own existence is what separates us. I believe that this separation is our soul. Phylosphy is expression of the "soul" and that is what makes us different, because we can choose between God and the Devil. If you do not serve GOd, you serve the devil even if you don't think he exists. Tell me one thing... why would anything live if it had not a purpose in life?

I would like to add one more thing... I consider the "Heavens and the Earth" referring to alternate Universes. If the world was indeed caused by a big bang would that not mean that there could be no other unirverse or dimensions as you might say? Science would tell us that there is only one "reality,dimension" and that is where we exist. Science states that everything inter-acts somehow. If things are not affected by anything else in any manner, then that means there can be no god, because what has no physical existence cannot be real. If there were indeed alternate realities and dimensions, which do not depend on each other, then Science has no foothold in my mind. God must be real.

I do not think of the bible as meant to be literally interpreted... because If we cannot literally explain God.. then our minds should not try to fathom literal information form his word.

(Edited by TriggerDemon on 02-25-2005 06:33)

Bugs, it is about the part where Cain goes out to the land of Nod, and takes a wife.

Now, strictly speaking, that is not possible for there were not other People to take a wife from, according to the bible. So, we were discussing how that could be mentioned in the bible, in obvious conflict with what is stated before. If one applies a bit of Anthropology to the situation, then it does give a possibility - that of description of who is a Person and who is not - most aboriginal peoples describe themselves as "The People" and others (strangers) as "not The People".

Do you know where Cain's wife came from?

TriggerDemon, there is nothing in the big bang theory to preclude other universes. Some scientific theories do include the possibility of other universes.

quote:

---

If there were indeed alternate realities and dimensions, which do not depend on each other, then Science has no foothold in my mind. God must be real.

---

That's a pretty big IF. No one knows if there are other "alternate realities and dimensions". From this statement, it sounds like you are basing your faith in God on something which is just as unproven. This statement says that you believe in God because you believe in alternate universes, neither of which can be proven at this time.

I think either Able or Cain was a viable hermaphodite and one of them gave birth to a daughter (you figure out the father), who grew up to become wife to the other. Inbreeding would explain a lot.

There is another serious flaw in the xian yarn. If god created and people evolved from that, the gene pool of Adam, Eve Cain and Able was too small to be viable and the very best which could be expected would be de-volution. Of course, this might explain politicians and church leaders.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Tell me one thing... why would anything live if it had not a purpose in life?

---

Does everything need a purpose to exist ? is it so hard to think that the forms of life spawned by accident ? and more that such accident may have happend somewhere else in the universe.

Regarding your quote about other dimensions/universes. FYI the theories of the super strings suppose the universe has 10 or 11 dimensions which could explain the difference of intensity between the 4 fondamental strengths ( the electro-magnetic strength, the strength of weak interactions and the strength of strong interactions and the gravitationnal strentgh ). And the possibility of several universes is not totally excluded, far from it.

quote:

---

Faith teaches me that we as human beings are different from monkeys and all the other creatures of this earth because we have souls. TO think, to question our own existence is what separates us. I believe that this separation is our soul. Phylosphy is expression of the "soul" and that is what makes us different, because we can choose between God and the Devil.

---

What you call "soul" rather looks like the awarness of ourselves. And phylosophy is the result of combination with our communications skills that allows us to express abstract concepts.

The human beings is special for 3 aspects : the communication skills, the social behavior, and the awarness of itself. But other animals like the macaques, chimps and dolphins share some of these aspects ( especially the social behavior and the awarness of themselves ). Some experiments showed the macaques take moral decision. The separation you draw between the human being and some primates is thinner than you think.

quote:

---

That was revolutionary in the sense that it equated your eye with the other person's eye. Your life is just as valuable as the stranger. This was not a common view in the cultures of that day where human life was not valued for all people groups and even within a people group.

---

Bugs, eye for an eye concept goes way back and was first introduced in Babylon known as "code of hammurabi"

as a matter of fact it was one of the first written down laws by mankind, which Jewish latter adopted for their laws.

Nothign radical or new.

quote:

---

That was revolutionary in the sense that it equated your eye with the other person's eye. Your life is just as valuable as the stranger. This was not a common view in the cultures of that day where human life was not valued for all people groups and even within a people group.

---

Bugs, eye for an eye concept goes way back and was first introduced in Babylon known as "code of hammurabi"

as a matter of fact it was one of the first written down laws by mankind, which Jewish latter adopted for their laws.

Nothign radical or new.

http://www.lawresearch.com/v10/regs/codeham.htm

I didn't say the Hebrews were the *only* people who had the concept. I said that compared to the cultures they found themselves among, it was a radical idea. I do appreciate you clarifying it all the same

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

If you really think about it... that is what defines a person's faith in the first place.. To choose what you believe.. We might not be able to prove God.. but we can no less disprove him.. If God did not create the world, WHat did? You can say your big bang, but what but everything there in the first place.

This Reminds me of an email I got the other day:

A scientist walks up to God and sais "Science has finally figured everything out, we know how to create life."
"Is that so? Show me" replies God.
"All you had to do was make a likeness of yourself with dirt and breathe life into it" The scientist sais proudly. (This part of the story can be altered but the message stais the same)
The scientist starts to grab some dirt and forms it into his likeness.
"Stop" sais God, "First show me how you got the dirt."

This is what I believe: God created Evolution "The Dirt" and by breathing life into us I believe we have gained a soul; awareness of ourselves as you said.

TriggerDemon: but what/who created God ? it did not spawned by itself, did it ? there must be a higher deity who created it, and so on ...
Maybe, just maybe, deities are simply a concept invented by our primitive ancestors to explain all the things they did not understand like the sun, moon, thunder, fire, rain, migration of the animals they hunted, etc ... Since then, science has shown there is no need to put god behind everything we don't understand. Not understanding something yet does not mean it is out of reach nor involves super powers.

quote:

---

If God did not create the world, WHat did? You can say your big bang, but what but everything there in the first place.

---

First, remember that the BigBang is a scientific theory. As such it is based on facts and subject to refinements, updates or disproval as more datas are gathered. There is several hypothesis about what there was "in the first place". Alas at the moment we have no mean to test them. It may be another universe that collapsed. Or the things we perceive ( aka the known universe ) may be a tiny drop growing since ( according to our observations ) ~15 billions years in a huuuuge and ever lasting cloud of universes.

In a way, considering the universe and time are finites makes me thing to the dark age where people "thought" the earth was flat and finite and there was monsters outside. As if there was a huge squid in the North wing of the Asylum ... wait there is

quote:

---

This is what I believe: God created Evolution "The Dirt" and by breathing life into us I believe we have gained a soul; awareness of ourselves as you said.

---

I'm not sure to understand nor how to interpret that correctly. Since God breathed life into all animals why aren't they all aware of themselves and praying the Lord for that ? If God only gave the consciousness to the creatures likeness of him/her/itself does it mean that, since the experiments shows that some primates ( chimps, macaques, ... ) are aware of themselves, human beings and primate are "cousins" and effectively descend from an elder kind of primate looking like God ?

quote:

---

If God did not create the world, WHat did? You can say your big bang, but what but everything there in the first place.

---

Typical uneducated drivel.

Check out Guth's Grand Guess

As one can see, it is entirely possible for there to be a natural Universe, and a natural Big Bang.

So, onto the god in the bible - that god is nowhere near omnipotent. 6 days, to create everything? Why not just create it in an instant? And God rested on the 7th day? Since when does an unlimited, all-powerful being need rest?

Rubbish.

The god in the bible as described by the bible is nowhere near equal to an omnipotent, unlimited, all-powerful being.

WS, following your logic couldn't an omnipotent god do just about anything he/she/it felt like doing? The actual time to create the universe may have been an instant, 6 days or millenia I should think.

Nowhere does it say God *needed* to rest on the 7th day. I would argue the reason that is mentioned in the creation story is to emphasize that *we* need to rest. One of the 10 commandments to keep the Sabbath which is a day of rest.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

WebShaman: Thank you for this fascinating article. I had never read an in depth description of the theories about the beginning of the known universe, especially the parts about quantum theory. Amazing. Each day I have more difficulties to understand how people can refute the scientific community and need to rely on "God".

Sorry it took so long, and I am not going back to read the pages I missed, so if I say something that has already been said, please forgive me.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

The silence is deafening...perhaps he is praying for the answer?

---

Always and forever is my goal.

quote:

---

briggl said:

I am not looking for an answer from a reasonable person, but rather from someone
who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

---

Gee, thanks.

quote:

---

TriggerDemon said:

Faith teaches me that we as human beings are different from monkeys and all the
other creatures of this earth because we have souls.

---

Just a quick question: where do you think that people crossed over from monkeys or apes or whatever to being able to have faith? Many people are still trying to come up with that, and I was wondering about your point of view.

quote:

---

poi said:

Since then, science has shown there is no need to put god behind everything we
don't understand. Not understanding something yet does not mean
it is out of
reach nor involves super powers.

---

Very interesting. I have been reading an article about this. That is considered the "God of Gaps" theory. That God is in the unexplained parts of the universe.

Okay, for Cain's wife, I have been dying to give this answer for a long time. Here is the logic. Cain was born with Abel, right? Cain then killed Abel, and was, in a sense, banished. Okay, that is all well and good you might say, but where did the woman come from? Well, Adam and Eve lived for a long time (according to the Bible), right? So if the hundreds of years is true, then how many children could they have in hundreds of years of having sex? I feel pretty safe to bet more than I can count on my fingers and toes. And were thier children exclusively male? I really doubt it. So, we come to the conclusion of this long proof: Cain married his sister. Now, before you all get grossed out, Abraham married his sister, too (oops, that probably grossed you out more). It wasn't until Moses' time that marring siblings was ruled out. Why? Well, one hypothesis is that the copying mistakes of the people had not added up as much yet. Therefore, you could marry close relations without the problem of having too many birth defects. If the above mentioned is true, then that is a fair bet as to what happened.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

It is not necessary to disprove the existance of god. The burden of proof is upon the individual making the positivie claim. In this case, anyone who claims something which patently does not exist, does in fact exist, must provide the irrefutable proof of their contention.

I am waiting.

Gid, even supposing she was capable of conceiveing children past her 5th decade, what makes you think she would want to?

Then the DNA factor enters. Sorry, another dead end Gid.

Besides, if the earth is only 6000 years old, what was Lucy doing in Olduvai Gorge a million or so years ago? Waiting for Able?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WS, following your logic couldn't an omnipotent god do just about anything he/she/it felt like doing? The actual time to create the universe may have been an instant, 6 days or millenia I should think.

---

Bugs, YECs consider Genesis to be a literal part of the Bible, and therefore it must be literally interpreted. I am already aware of how your belief works, and my comments were not meant for you!

As long as one doesn't take the Bible literally, there is a lot of wisdom in its pages.

So, incest was OK back then? Hmmm.....
Explains a lot!

Incest was inevitable if you accept the Adam and Eve business.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)