Topic awaiting preservation: Genesis Explained/Debated (Page 4 of 5)

Well, everybody, I'm a newbie, take me with a grain of salt:

I just read the entire string in the last hour and have tried to retain as much as I can. I have to say that all of you who have given comments to forward the conversations and debates have earned my respect. I was raised christian and know a good amount of the bible, but now classify myself as agnostic.

As far as the oiginal topic of the thread, I have come to my personal conclusion that the basis for the events that occured through creationism and evolution could be almost interchangeable. As stated before both theories follow a common timeline as to what order the events occured. The first dicrepency is how long it actually took, 4 billion years? 4 thousand years?

I believe the bible fully supports the possibility of an Earth that is billions of years old. We have no scale as to how long a day is for God/Creator, and as stated before 7 is used many many times throughout the bible to portray an infinite number. What I find most interesting though, is an idea that was told to me while I was attending a christian boarding school. As follows: If God created Adam and Eve as adults, why couldn't he create an Earth as old as he saw fit? Just something to get the mind going.

Beyond this is where the vast discrepencies arise between the two theories, which is what they are theories. Due to this fact none of us, I feel, will know the actual truth, because as stated before, none of us were there. It is because of this that I have to once again commend all of you for making this an interesting, non-cutthroat thread to read.

Now, if the online person to completely slam my views is Dio, then I hope that means that i am welcome here.

Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound
-Ray

Don't call me Dio. I believe that is Spanish for god. There is no god therefore the implcation is there is no Diogenes, yet...here I am.

That is a nice bit of rationalization and self-justification

quote:

---

why couldn't he create an Earth as old as he saw fit?

---

.

He? You risk the wrath of wimzlib.

I believe the operative phrase in your piece is

quote:

---

I believe

---

.

Believe away, it is what faith is all about.

That and ignoring reality.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

...Believe away, it is what faith is all about.

That and ignoring reality

---

Ignoring reality is very bad indeed, but perceptions alter the acceptance of reality; and ignoring perceptions can leave reality bland and boring.

As for my beliefs, you must realize that when you say there is no God:

quote:

---

There is no god therefore the implcation is there is no Diogenes...

---

...You are stating your beliefs, which is respectable because at least you have beliefs, but it is still a belief none the less. If it was not a belief, but cold, hard fact, I doubt you would have trouble throwing any believers of God into loony bins.
Oh, and for the record, I didn't say I believe in God, I said that I believe the two theories are compatible to a certain extent.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-03-2005 16:38)

quote:

---

I said that I believe the two theories are compatible to a certain extent.

---

once again, if people continue thinking this way...how the fuck will we ever separate science from religion?

I said it before and I will say it again:



may we all be blessed but Flying Spaghetti Monster...and Ramasax I personally don't like Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterless Nation =(

Ruski, that is a work of art!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

indeed, I just hope you didnt assume I made it.

Whoever made it, it is neat! I see our god has balls too. I also note the supplicant has his own noodle.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

All I am saying is that neither side can show a completely fact-based arguement to prove that the other is completely false. I am not saying that by being compatible to an extent, that they are the same thing. Both theories are just different ways of explaining how and why the process happened. Science is of course very real, but has yet to find a way to disprove any relgious idea beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, religion (any religion) has the catch-22 of being able to say that the laws of science were put in place by their deity.

No matter what you believe on the subject, calling somebody ignorant for having different beliefs will accomplish nothing but the perception that you have resulted to name calling. No two people will agree on every subject, every time. The point of debating is not to prove someone wrong or get them to say you are right, but to get your perception across so others can hear your opinion. I, personally, will be biased against the opinion of somebody if they have said that somebody elses opinion is void or ignorant, no matter what side of the arguement they are on.

quote:

---

...if people continue thinking this way...how the fuck will we ever separate science from religion?

---

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was the goal we were working towards.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

All I am saying is that neither side can show a completely fact-based arguement to prove that the other is completely false.

---

Bulls**t.

Evolution IS based on facts and observances. ID is based on...what? Opinion, and suggestiong, conjecture. And that is all. Evolution is a scientific theory, and ID is just a "general" hypothesis, not even worthy of being called a theory, let alone a scientific one.

You need to go look up the definitions of those, I am afraid.

quote:

---

Science is of course very real, but has yet to find a way to disprove any relgious idea beyond a shadow of a doubt.

---

This is so full of bulls**t, that it is hard to decide where to start first.

The Earth is flat? Wrong, disproven through Science, and exploration.
The Earth is the Center of the Universe and the Sun and the Heavens revolves around it? Wrong, proven to be quite the opposite by Science.

And on, and on, and on, and on....

Next time you post, rethink, re-examine, and corregate, ok?

All I know is that for either side to prove themselves in this debate, somebody is going to have go back in time and witness what happened. Until then, no matter how much science proves anything, the religions have a catch-22 to say that their deity put those laws in place.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

All I know is that for either side to prove themselves in this debate, somebody is going to have go back in time and witness what happened. Until then, no matter how much science proves anything, the religions have a catch-22 to say that their deity put those laws in place.

---

*sigh*

There is no "Catch-22" - there is the denial of facts and observation, that is all. Does Evolution exist? Yes, we have seen it, it is documented, and it is a FACT!.

Science doesn't rely on "excuses, denial, and/or miracles, greater power, yadda yadda yadda" as a basis for examination and explanation.

Can any Religion prove, scientifically that their Deity exists?

No.

That puts them all on the same level of belief, really. One without evidence, fact, or reliable experiment.

Belief in the Great Spaghetti God is just as VALID as any other religious belief.

On the other hand, Scientific explanations are subject to critical examination, on observance, and reliable, repeatable experiments.

So, your religious belief can deny that the Earth is round - but Science has already factually proven that it is round. That still doesn't stop humans from believing differently.

And ID isn't even in the debate. There are no observances, or facts, or reliable, repeatable experiments that lend ID any credibility, whatsoever.

It does not belong in a serious, scientific learning environment.

It belongs in the realm of philosophy, and religion.

And that is the huge difference between the two (not to mention that Evolution says absolutely NOTHING about Creation!).

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-05-2005 15:30)

The religious claims there IS a god or gods...I believe it is a scientific axiom that those making a claim in the affirmative must provide the proof there-of.

This is an intersting analysis of ID from the NY Times:

quote:

---

Design for Confusion

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 5, 2005
I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.

You might have thought that a strategy of creating doubt about inconvenient research results could work only in soft fields like economics. But it turns out that the strategy works equally well when deployed against the hard sciences.

The most spectacular example is the campaign to discredit research on global warming. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus, many people have the impression that the issue is still unresolved. This impression reflects the assiduous work of conservative think tanks, which produce and promote skeptical reports that look like peer-reviewed research, but aren't. And behind it all lies lavish financing from the energy industry, especially ExxonMobil.

There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?

Even when reporters do know the difference, the conventions of he-said-she-said journalism get in the way of conveying that knowledge to readers. I once joked that if President Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headlines of news articles would read, "Opinions Differ on Shape of the Earth." The headlines on many articles about the intelligent design controversy come pretty close.

Finally, the self-policing nature of science - scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion - can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they're elitists who think they're smarter than the rest of us.

Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings. But sheer political power hasn't been enough to get creationism into the school curriculum. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific support, and the country isn't ready - yet - to teach religious doctrine in public schools.

But what if creationists do to evolutionary theory what corporate interests did to global warming: create a widespread impression that the scientific consensus has shaky foundations?

Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: "creation science" was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

---

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Albert Einstein and Ideology:

From Einstein's response to a letter written by a Sunday school student:

quote:

---

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

---

I whole-heartedly agree that an individual that says evolution is not true because God created the world is naive. What I have been trying to say is that both science and religion can co-exsist, not symbiotically of course. Science has proven that evolution is very real, and that the universe is constantly changing. However, evolution can be taught in schools without discrediting religions.

The main problem that I see with Creationism, is that it would most definitely be taught from a judeo-christian perspective. Religion has always been at odds with science, which is something that will most likely never end, but without teaching from a standpoint that can include the insight of other religions is ignorant and wrong. It would be impossible to give equality to all religions, as there are so many of them, and they all have certain aspects that must be included in their telling of creation. I was raised in a pentecostal household, were I was told that the Smurfs, Scooby-doo, and Lucky Charms Cereal were considered evil (Trust me, I'm glad to be out of there). My mom definitely let me know that she did not completely agree with evolution, but she admitted that this was mostly because it is portrayed as a tool to attack religion.

I believe an individual can be taught evolution and believe in God at the same time. Discrepencies arise when religious leaders feel that they are losing their power to science. A lot of problems stem from religious leaders, as apposed to religious followers (Maybe a topic for a different thread). On the other hand, many atheists do want to use science to prove all religion wrong. Overall, it is not ideology or science that are at odds with each other, it is the individuals that want to find ways to just bring down those that they don't agree with.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Einstein may have many credentials in matter mathematical, though I hear some of his theories are now being challenged in the light of more recent discoveries, but on the matter of faith he was merely expressing an opinion and hardly speaking for

quote:

---

every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science

---

.

Religious leaders could not cause problems without the support of their flock.

There may be some aetheists who wish to 'bring down' those they don't agree with, just as many mythists want to bring down aetheists, however I think most aetheists really don't give a damn what those bedamned by myths believe.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

You are right, I definitely think religious individuals go against those without opinions more than those that aren't, and they tend to be more close minded, I know this, because I was raised around them. The only thing I am trying to get across is that you can have reality without disputing faith and vice-versa. It is the ignorant flock that follows whatever the religious leader says, and it's always more rewarding to keep an open-mind (without ignorance).

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

The only thing I am trying to get across is that you can have reality without disputing faith and vice-versa. It is the ignorant flock that follows whatever the religious leader says, and it's always more rewarding to keep an open-mind (without ignorance).

---

Most on this board already realize this - but it is nice to see that you have come to this conclusion, as well.

Thanks

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Good to see things don't change much around here

i find interesting the need to reconcile two things that really aren't out to prove the same thing. science can't tell us why and religion can't tell us how...why try to make them? the debate is fun and a learning experience on both sides for those who are open-minded enough to actually listen, but no one's mind is actually going to change with regards to their basic belief. i've learned that in the long run details like this really don't matter too much, evolution vs creationism vs whatever doesn't have any major daily impact on my faith.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Well, I'm back momentarily. Only to say that it has been a long strange trip for me during my absence. I had a few things to look into to satisfy my curious mind. And I've got to say that I have learned a lot. I also have to say that everything I learned led me right back to the Bible. And with even more conviction in Jesus Christ than I had to begin with. In short, He has surpassed becoming just a belief for me....He is a fact for me. Undoubtable, Unshakable. And yes, I'm still firmly grounded in reality, believe it or not. And no, I still won't try to force Him on you in any way, shape or form.

I know the crowd here well enough to know what kind of reaction to expect from that, if there's any reaction at all. But I did want to come back and say it anyway. Just to let you know I hadn't forgotten about any of you. And to thank you. All you "non-believers" really helped me by pushing me.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Fig - and if all christians took a view like that, there would be no problem.

The problem becomes a *very* serious one when religious dogma is being pushed into our public school systems as science.

Surely you can see that this is indeed a serious problem?

These discussions are not simply an acedemic exercise - they arise because a group is attmepting to use law to push religion into science class, to be taught as actual science.

If that's not a terrible insanity, I don't know what is.

Bell - i can honestly say that is pretty depressing to hear. It seems as though you've moved from a person of reason, with religious beliefs as well, to someone who is closing the door on reason altogether. Very sad direction to go in, calling anything like this 'undoubtable, unshakable'.

Nice post, DL. I agree, whole-heartedly.

DL--please don't feel depressed on my account. I am by no means closing the door to reason. And honestly, I don't understand why I have come to see Jesus as a fact for myself changes my reasoning abilities? That is just one thing in all the world. By no means am I going to start thinking the earth is flat, or the moon is made of green cheese, or that there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I've already stated that I believed in God, the supernatural. How does believing as a fact that that same supernatural being came to this earth as a man change my reasoning abilities to any degree that should make you say "that it depresses you"?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

You did not simply state the belief - you stated that it is an "Undoubtable, Unshakable" fact.

That brings things to a whole different level, and in a whole different direction.

To me, it is sad when someone takes that step.

quote:

---

How does believing as a fact that that same supernatural being came to this earth as a man change my reasoning abilities to any degree that should make you say "that it depresses you"?

---

I think that says it all.

Maybe you mean to word that differently? That you believe that it really happened, but have no proof of this, and therefore, no facts of any kind (and therefore, cannot with absolute certainty say it is a fact). It is just your belief.

OK, let me put it clearer-- it is my belief that it is a fact. I can say with absolute certainty that I believe it really happened. There is no doubt in my mind that it happened....but not everybody feels that way and that is their perogitive.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

it is my belief that it is a fact. I can say with absolute certainty that I believe it really happened. There is no doubt in my mind that it happened.

---

Exactly as portrayed in the New Testament? (in other words, literally?)

Yes, and which of the 4 books is the correct literal one?

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

There is no doubt in my mind that it happened...

---

Of course not BD. There cannot be allowed even the tiniest doubt, even a scintilla of reason or reality allowed in there or everything you believe, your whole life, becomes a vast and empty lie.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

No Diogenes, I can say for sure that you are wrong about that. My life was not vast and empty by any means before I believed it. If anything, this belief adds a bit of a burden to my life. But one that I'm not unwilling to carry--I can honestly say that my life has not become overly guilt ridden either.

Honestly, I can say that it keeps me a little bit more humble, and a lot less apt to point fingers at other people. If it worked that way for everybody, maybe Christianity wouldn't have such a bad name. But wish in one hand...

As for the Gosples---they seem like a bit of a documentary don't they? And just like if you interview four different people about one person, you are going to get four different stories, four different view points, and four different accounts of the person's in quenstion life. But you aren't going to get the whole story ver batim from birth to death from any of them. Any cop can tell you that stories that match exactly from different people are more suspect to be made up before hand by the people involved. You have to read between the lines and make up your own mind about the person. And that's hard to do sometimes, especially when the person in question has been dead for 2000 years.

It's like detective work. I know if my daughter runs in the house with three of her friends and tells me about something that happened at the park to them, I'm going to get four different accounts of the same event, even though they were just there, and they all saw the same thing. It has happened numerous times, in different situations. And it's always the same way.

I also know there are Gospels that were written by others....like the Goslple of Phillip, the Gosple of Mary, that the Church decided not to put in the Bible. I haven't read those yet, but plan on it if I can find them. I'm sure they will be different from the four I am more familiar with, but I'm also sure that they will still portray the same person. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (especially John) vary in degrees from each other, but at the core, they all portray Jesus as he was as a person, and His words may vary a little from account to account, but the general message doesn't change at all.

So it's just like anything else....you read what people had to say about the person and you make up your mind what YOU think about the person. The loose ends make it more real for me, takes away the ring of conspiracy. That may not be true for everybody.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-11-2005 17:25)

You haven't answered my question, Bd.

Does it matter? When you are just going to tear what I say to shreds, no matter which answer I give? For someone who doesn't give much credence to "belief" and only to "fact", you sure do press me to state my beliefs--and then want them on your terms of "black or white".

Yes, I believe that the gosples TOGETHER paint an accurate picture of Jesus as far as what was most important about him--his ministry and who he was. No, I believe the Gosples do NOT paint a COMPLETE picture of Jesus at all.

If you are trying to get to a point, just say it instead of beating around the bush trying to trap me into a neat little category of yes or no. Not everything about a person can be pinned down as black or white consistantly and in perfect agreement by every other person who runs across them. Not any person in history, and not any person in the here and now.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Well...

Calm down.

I just wanted your position on that clarified.

Thanks.

Geez BD, ya know what they say about heat and kitchens.

Your position is as untenable as Gids and that poor catholic woman from texas whatsername's, only slightly better argued.

You will be questioned and challenged at every turn of the way here.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

You will be questioned and challenged at every turn of the way here

---

I don't mind. I love a challenge. I can stand as much heat as you throw me.

quote:

---

Well...

Calm down.

I just wanted your position on that clarified.

Thanks.

---

Sorry WS--I came across wrong. I wasn't upset, just exasperated.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Genesis?
It's anti-sience.. burning witches all over again..
As long as we can't actually ask God, that book is nothing but paper and ink.
If you do get to ask him and he says "it's so", then shame on me, but I still havent murdered thousands of people by being wrong.
I can appologize and be on my way again.
On the other hand, if he says Genesis is a croc, then all these christians are murderers and an appology wont help much then, will it?
Therein lies the difference.
Christians seldomly restrain themselves to just debating this, they enforce it, like islamists do.
I can accept Genesis as a theory, albeit nutty, but nothing more.

(^-^)b

Amen.

Ditto.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Recently I saw the History channels new story "Ape to Man', and they showcased this newer idea, but only a the end of it, as I suppose the scientific community still has doubts about it. They explained that Neanderthals, and homospaiens existed at the same time in Europe. And by DNA standards, in todays age, anyone human sitting next to another human has about 4 or less differing genes that sets the 2 apart, ancestorially. Neanderthals having about 18. So they surmised that they were NOT an ancestor, but more of a cousin. They explained it as, a long ago ancestor originating in Africa migrated to Europe, becoming, after thousands of years, NMan. That same ancestor, left a remaining descendant, that stayed in Africa, and after evolving over time, they too migrated to Europe, = HMan. So they showed how that Neanderthal did not contribute to the homo-sapiens of today, and Hman even helped eliminate NMan as a species, because the HMan was much smarter at surviving, which the under-developed social structure of NMan could not compete, and died out. Never ADDING to our gene pool. But clearly we both came from a common ancient ancestor.

quote:

---

BelladonnaWell, I'm telling you, that it's a scientific fact that Sapien and Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has proven that we are of NO relation to each other.

---

No it is not a fact, but it is possible. MDNA is maternal, so who is to say that the ancestor of NMan was not the same as Hman, if Hman's mother had a son. Even though it can happen in males, it is extremely rare. And you forget about random mutations which have altered the genetic code over the millennia.

(Edited by Zynx on 08-18-2005 23:25)

quote:

---

Christians seldomly restrain themselves to just debating this, they enforce it, like islamists do.

---

I just love the blatant generalized stereotypes which seem to be widely accepted in here. First off, how do you refer to people as Christians who do not fit the predetermined description of a Christian? Of all the teachings of Christ, I consider the base theme to be one of doing no harm and loving others. It is the one thing repeated over and over. If a white guy is running around saying he is black, that does not make him black, and if a murdering fool with no conscience is running around saying he is working for Jesus, when he goes against everything that Jesus taught, it does not make him one. It only makes him a mentally ill zealot. To judge the whole body on the actions of people like that is ignorant and just plain wrong.

Sorry, but being a Christian I find it incredibly troubling how easily we are all condemned in these generalized ways because of the actions of the hypocritical and lying manipulators. Not being able to make the distinction here in your arguments is nothing but intellectual sloth.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

It may be unfortunate, but it is a simple fact of life that when large numbers of a group of people have conitnually made headlines over issues that people like myself take as very negative, that negativity is going to attach itself to the name.

Christians have been bahving very unchristlike since...well, since the time of christ. If christianity has been acting this way since the beginning, then we cannot realistically say that to be a christian one must be christlike.

The name belongs to those who use it...not those who fulfill what can be considered its true meaning...

Think of it in terms of the way the term Federalist was used by the oponents of federalism in the 19th century

And, keep in mind - what was referred to in the post you quoted was the majority; not the whole.
While you may take exception, I find the statement fairly accurate, from personal experience.

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-19-2005 00:09)