It should be noted that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest.
"That's so, like, two pages ago, man."
Crimson Jester went back in time and retroactively ninja'd you!
|
It should be noted that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest."That's so, like, two pages ago, man."
Crimson Jester went back in time and retroactively ninja'd you!
Curses! Foiled by time travel.
That, or being to lazy to carefully read through 65 pages of posts...
Curses! Foiled by time travel.
I'm sticking with time travel. Because the Big Bang would involve relativistic effects... on the other hand, CJ might have actually posted that during the last universe, and it's been floating as a relict in the ether until now... we don't know what kind of alien life might have existed before this Big Bang... (puts on tinfoil hat).
|
|
I'm sticking with time travel. Because the Big Bang would involve relativistic effects... on the other hand, CJ might have actually posted that during the last universe, and it's been floating as a relict in the ether until now... we don't know what kind of alien life might have existed before this Big Bang... (puts on tinfoil hat).
I bet Mr. Lovecraft knew... There were enough tentacles!
|
All I'm saying is that, understanding evolution to the extent that current theory allows, I don't view it in any way as a threat to belief in God. Or even to the belief that God created mankind. It's a threat only to the belief in literal special creation.
I will grant that evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and Genesis…that takes some hoop jumping.
Possibly. Here seems to be a fairly good site that talks about old earth creation, evolution, among other things. I guess that I would still call this a "propaganda" site (Sebastian) as they are Christians looking for answers, but they really seem to have a much better handle on science and openly refute the Answers in Genesis site.
There is a lot of good information in the site. I was reading stuff about the flood that was interesting. Is it all correct? I have no idea. But I think that we are getting closer.
|
It should be noted that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest."That's so, like, two pages ago, man."
Crimson Jester went back in time and retroactively ninja'd you!Curses! Foiled by time travel.
That, or being to lazy to carefully read through 65 pages of posts...
Thats my excuse, this thread goes so fast that by the time I have my long winded post all set up and coherent, it doesn't matter anymore.
|
|
It should be noted that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest."That's so, like, two pages ago, man."
Crimson Jester went back in time and retroactively ninja'd you!
As well as severeal Cleric Scientists doesnt that sound like a prestige class to you?
Let me pose a hypothetical question:
Suppose that God really made the universe in six 24 hour days. On the evening of that sixth day, Adam and Eve look up into the sky to appreciate the stars (which were created on the fourth day). Now, how is it that they could see light from stars that are calculated to be so far away that their light would takes centuries (or longer) to reach earth?
Answer: God designed things so that stars were immediately visible on earth, despite their distance away--i.e., they were created with a strem of photons already in place, bridging the gulf of space.
Or try this: on the seventh day, Adam cut down a tree (Genesis says there were trees mature enough to bear fruit). How many rings might he see in the tree's cross-section? Zero? 35?
Which leads me to the question: if God created a mature, appears to be 'lived in' universe, how could you accurately date its age from natural processes?
Science cannot address this because science cannot assign a mathematical presence to miracles (a miracle, by definition, operates outside the laws of nature).
This is how I, personally, reconcile creation with evolution--evolution is the logical extension of human observation whose results cannot be trusted because they do not/cannot make adjustments for God's miraculous interventions in history.
I bet Mr. Lovecraft knew...
I love Lovecraft--true horror is a universe that is nothing but uncaring chaotic power.
Here seems to be a fairly good site that talks about old earth creation, evolution, among other things. I guess that I would still call this a "propaganda" site (Sebastian) as they are Christians looking for answers, but they really seem to have a much better handle on science and openly refute the Answers in Genesis site.
This is an interesting site! Haven't followed too many of the links yet, but I like these guys! Great quote: "After a brief look at theological responses to biological evolution, some fundamental themes of Christian theology are reviewed. On this basis it is argued that evolution is to be preferred to creationism from the theological standpoint."
Specifically referencing Evolution and Creation Science Evolution - The Bible Taught It First!.
I do not know, Moff. That does seem like a lot of hoop jumping to me.
First, we have to toss out ‘days’. That is a big step for me. Like any good oracle, the bible is often ambiguous and vague. For some reason, the author decided to throw out a very specific time reference here.
Many people argue that the bible is referring to god’s days which we can not comprehend. A day is a human concept based upon the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. A being familiar with the cosmos may have said one revolution or a zillion revolutions, which would not have made any sense to Moses. Or some other way of measuring the passage of time as god understands it. Either god would have explained, or Moses would have put down some unimaginable quantifier. But he did not. He put down days, which as a human who does not yet realize the Earth revolves around the Sun makes perfect sense.
You could argue that time is meaningless to god who has not beginning nor end. Why would he give a time frame to Moses then? Why such an arbitrary one as well? Certainly, if a day is meaningless to god he would at least understand its significance to Moses.
Then Mr. Neyman infers that god did not poof all the creatures. God said let the Earth bring forth. For me, if you close one eye and kind of squint, it works. Ignoring ‘day’ references, this still implies to me that the creatures were all brought forth at the same time. Again, a completely reasonable possibility for early man. Since god is being specific enough to tell us all of this, it seems a major oversight to mention creatures changing over time. And if man evolved from ape it seems pretty important god should mention this since he is giving us dominion over our ancestors.
This is how I, personally, reconcile creation with evolution--evolution is the logical extension of human observation whose results cannot be trusted because they do not/cannot make adjustments for God's miraculous interventions in history.
Positing that this is so, my only remaining question is: Why did God rearrange the fossil record? To fool us?
Just as one should not form an opinion on the Bible without studying it, one should not be so quick to form an opinion on evolution without studying the fossil record firsthand.
Positing that this is so, my only remaining question is: Why did God rearrange the fossil record? To fool us?
I would contend that we still have much to learn about dating anything from prehistory...
This is how I, personally, reconcile creation with evolution--evolution is the logical extension of human observation whose results cannot be trusted because they do not/cannot make adjustments for God's miraculous interventions in history.
You find it more reasonable that god is changing the rules than verifiable and predictable observations?
How do you know the words which appear in your bible have not been changed by satan?
Positing that this is so, my only remaining question is: Why did God rearrange the fossil record? To fool us?I would contend that we still have much to learn about dating anything from prehistory...
What would be the point? God would just change the rules again.
|
|
This is how I, personally, reconcile creation with evolution--evolution is the logical extension of human observation whose results cannot be trusted because they do not/cannot make adjustments for God's miraculous interventions in history.
What you say may be true. However, be careful. At its most basic level, my problem with this is that if God created a mature earth, then I feel that he had to have done it with the intention to deceive. What other possible explanation could there be for dinosaur fossils and the like? For creating the "laws" around which we are able to date rocks and such. For deliberately putting in layers that imply a progression, etc. If the "answer" is that Satan put the fossils there, that opens up a whole new can of worms and ends up being a very slippery slope.
I don't feel like God wants to deceive. I just feel like we don't have all the answers yet.
I would contend that we still have much to learn about dating anything from prehistory...
? I'm talking about observed fossils, not derived dates. Go to the outcrops and look at them, and see the sequences. If you can find me one (1) real, physical example of a human fossil together with a dinosaur fossil in the same rock, I'll immediately renounce geology and all the other sciences as tools of the devil, and join a seminary. If God created them both simultaneously -- or even on separate days, but a global Flood mixed everything up -- there should be thousands of examples, and the age of the said rock is a non-issue in this case. All it takes is ONE example to destroy the whole theory of evolution. Give me that one example.
Specifically referencing Evolution and Creation Science Evolution - The Bible Taught It First!.
I do not know, Moff. That does seem like a lot of hoop jumping to me.
First, we have to toss out ‘days’. That is a big step for me. Like any good oracle, the bible is often ambiguous and vague. For some reason, the author decided to throw out a very specific time reference here.
Many people argue that the bible is referring to god’s days which we can not comprehend. A day is a human concept based upon the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. A being familiar with the cosmos may have said one revolution or a zillion revolutions, which would not have made any sense to Moses. Or some other way of measuring the passage of time as god understands it. Either god would have explained, or Moses would have put down some unimaginable quantifier. But he did not. He put down days, which as a human who does not yet realize the Earth revolves around the Sun makes perfect sense.
You could argue that time is meaningless to god who has not beginning nor end. Why would he give a time frame to Moses then? Why such an arbitrary one as well? Certainly, if a day is meaningless to god he would at least understand its significance to Moses.
Then Mr. Neyman infers that god did not poof all the creatures. God said let the Earth bring forth. For me, if you close one eye and kind of squint, it works. Ignoring ‘day’ references, this still implies to me that the creatures were all brought forth at the same time. Again, a completely reasonable possibility for early man. Since god is being specific enough to tell us all of this, it seems a major oversight to mention creatures changing over time. And if man evolved from ape it seems pretty important god should mention this since he is giving us dominion over our ancestors.
The Hebrew word for 'day' used in Genesis chapter one is the word for a 24 hour day; also, the poetical refrain is "evening and morning, the ___ day."
Man and woman are described by Scripture as special--man is molded by God personally and receives the breath of life from the Creator's mouth; Eve is created from Adam's rib. No other living things get such personal creative treatment. Man/woman is said to be created in God's image/likeness; the Bible takes great pains to show us that we are different from all of God's other creations, and are much more prtecious to God than any of His other creations.
I don't feel like God wants to deceive. I just feel like we don't have all the answers yet.
Why does god not reveal himself to everyone? Especially since he went through all the hassle of making two covenants with us.
|
|
Since god is being specific enough to tell us all of this, it seems a major oversight to mention creatures changing over time. And if man evolved from ape it seems pretty important god should mention this since he is giving us dominion over our ancestors.
Yeah. There's an ego booster for you. "See that worm over there? I started with that and eventually got to you." If that wouldn't have confused early man, I don't know what would have.
[I just feel like we don't have all the answers yet.
Agreed.
Why does god not reveal himself to everyone? Especially since he went through all the hassle of making two covenants with us.
Christians would say that God did this through Jesus, and since no one can top dying for our sins and rising from the dead, no further manifestation is necessary...
The Hebrew word for 'day' used in Genesis chapter one is the word for a 24 hour day; also, the poetical refrain is "evening and morning, the ___ day."
Exactly! Which makes perfect sense to a man who has no concept of the cosmos. If god was using the day that Moses was familiar with, god was being pretty specific. It seems highly unlikely to me that god meant billions of years when he said day.
No other living things get such personal creative treatment.
Again, this makes perfect sense to ancient man when he looks around and sees that animals do not generally use tools or communicate complex concepts to one another.
I argue that man is no different than animal except we developed brains instead of claws. If you want to be more specific – intelligence, capacity for speech and opposable thumbs. I have seen cats, dogs and monkeys act very human like by grieving the dead, attempting to console another, play pranks.
|
|
First, we have to toss out ‘days’. That is a big step for me. Like any good oracle, the bible is often ambiguous and vague. For some reason, the author decided to throw out a very specific time reference here. Many people argue that the bible is referring to god’s days which we can not comprehend. A day is a human concept based upon the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
The problem is not in the definition of "day". The problem is getting the exact wording correct from an ancient language. Many Hebrew words have a number of different variations on meanings. This site does a pretty good job explaining some of the problems with the translation of "day" --> Here.
Think of it this way -- you can "love" the poodle and you can "love" the poodle. The same word can have two rather different meanings. ;-)
He did and people still didn't believe. So why do it again? And again?
Are you suggesting god is incapable of convincing people he exists? Or that unbelievers refuse to believe out of spite?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Christians would say that God did this through Jesus, and since no one can top dying for our sins and rising from the dead, no further manifestation is necessary...
Why does god not reveal himself to everyone? Especially since he went through all the hassle of making two covenants with us.
That's a pretty poor method of revelation. I wasn't alive back then, I don't know anyone who was, the revelation was only to his best buds who had a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that Jesus was the son of God, and they recorded their revelation in a book.
Or, in other words, Oz is a real place because Dorothy Gale went there from Kansas. Just because you haven't been there or seen it doesn't mean it's not real. It was revealed to Frank L. Baum who recorded it for us all.
Christians would say that God did this through Jesus, and since no one can top dying for our sins and rising from the dead, no further manifestation is necessary...
I was not there and did not see Jesus rise. Can I have a do-over please? :)
|
|
Are you suggesting god is incapable of convincing people he exists? Or that unbelievers refuse to believe out of spite?
We're kind of getting back to the "free choice" thing again. If it was so obvious that there wasn't any other possible answer, then does it really constitute a choice?
And I don't think that "spite" has anything to do with it. Selfishness maybe. Possibly pride. Arrogance? I suppose that some people might be that way out of spite, but I don't think that is the only option.
This site does a pretty good job explaining some of the problems with the translation of "day" --> Here.
Ah! So it depends on what your definition of is is. You do realize that opens every word in the bible to be interpreted however you want, right?
Christians would say that God did this through Jesus, and since no one can top dying for our sins and rising from the dead, no further manifestation is necessary...
Why does god not reveal himself to everyone? Especially since he went through all the hassle of making two covenants with us.That's a pretty poor method of revelation. I wasn't alive back then, I don't know anyone who was, the revelation was only to his best buds who had a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that Jesus was the son of God, and they recorded their revelation in a book.
Or, in other words, Oz is a real place because Dorothy Gale went there from Kansas. Just because you haven't been there or seen it doesn't mean it's not real. It was revealed to Frank L. Baum who recorded it for us all.
Correct me if I make a logical error here, but doesn't the nature of your arguement invalidate all historical documents as being trustworthy? If you cannot trust what people in the past wrote (and I am well aware that propaganda is nothing new in the historical record), then history classes have nothing solid to teach.
If, on the other hand, multiple witnesses corroborate a story (as is used in criminal proceedings), then the multiple records of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection must demand the respect of historians (who often have only one text speaking to an historical event).
I'm beginning to see that we have a blended spectrum of views, rather than a dichotomy... for the sake of convenience, I'm breaking up portions of the spectrum into categories here, so if I misinterpret or overstate anyone's position, I apologize in advance -- it's easily possible for a person to be a "1.5" on this scale, for example. But overall, we have something like this:
1. Every word of Genesis is literally correct, and all observations dealing with the past are wrong unless they're cited word for word in the Bible. All of geology and paleontology are renounced on this basis, with no need to study them. All observations of the fossil record are off-limits as evidence of anything. Examples: QXL99, mevers.
2. Genesis can be literally correct, within a reasonable scope of interpretation (e.g., what is a "day" to God? And if God commands the Earth to "bring forth" animals, that sounds like Him setting the process of evolution underway...). God is the ultimate prerequisite for all of the laws of science, so that studying them does glory to Him. Example: Moff Rimmer.
3. There may or may not be a God; evolution can be His work, or can occur naturally. There is no harm in belief, and no requirement for it, either. In any event, Genesis has some problems, vis-a-vis the physical world. Example: Kirth Gersen.
4. I've read Genesis, and feel it has too many problems to be easily reconciled with the physical world. Because we're living in the physical world, and because the Bible appears to be suspect in other ways, the physical record wins, and the Bible must for the time being be rejected. Example: CourtFool, Sebastian.
5. The Bible is not even worth reading, except to make fun of. Those people are superstitious fools. Example: Richard Dawkins.
It's important to note that the scale is increasing in terms of acceptance of a materialistic universe, that's all. A "2" is no less Christian in any way than a "1." Also, we'd have a branching/forked spectrum if there were any Orthodox jews, Muslims, or Mormons in the thread, but barring them, the only non-Christian religious affiliate I know of is me, and as a Buddhist I lack a religiously-mandated creation mythology that anyone would recognize as such.
Ah! So it depends on what your definition of is is.
Agh, not more Bill Clinton!
We're kind of getting back to the "free choice" thing again.
Agreed and I do not think we are going to ever agree on that.
If it was so obvious that there wasn't any other possible answer, then does it really constitute a choice?
Selfishness, pride, arrogance…
And I don't think that "spite" has anything to do with it. Selfishness maybe. Possibly pride. Arrogance? I suppose that some people might be that way out of spite, but I don't think that is the only option.
I am not really sure how it would be selfishness. Pride and arrogance? Sure. We are right and you are wrong. Of course, that is exactly what many Christians are professing.
I am more than willing to admit I am wrong. I just need some proof. The only proof anyone has been able to offer is the bible which I find extremely suspect.
And, I am not accusing you of this Moff because it is just standard Christian rhetoric issued to all believers, but making it the other person’s fault for not believing is pretty standard social engineering.
Why are you so arrogant that you fail to believe in fairies? You must be the anti-fairy!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Correct me if I make a logical error here, but doesn't the nature of your arguement invalidate all historical documents as being trustworthy? If you cannot trust what people in the past wrote (and I am well aware that propaganda is nothing new in the historical record), then history classes have nothing solid to teach.If, on the other hand, multiple witnesses corroborate a story (as is used in criminal proceedings), then the multiple records of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection must demand the respect of historians (who often have only one text speaking to an historical event).
Nope. The bible, as with any work of literature, can be used to help verify facts about the time in which it was written. Most historical books are of this nature - they lay out facts that can be verified. We know the Romans made it to England because they built a wall there. We know Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence because we have earlier drafts of his writings.
However, if you found a book written by George Washington's good friends that claimed he could shoot laser beams from his eyes and s!$! ice cream, such claims would be rightfully met with a great deal of skepticism.
Or, if you prefer, you could probably find a book from WWII in which it is "proven" that non-Aryans are inferior to Aryans. Even if the book accurately describes the location of cities in Germany, the facts of WWII, and the way Hitler felt about eggs, it's clearly written with an agenda and that agenda must be examined and considered.
In the case of the bible, it was in the interest of Jesus's followers to make him into a martyr after his death and inflate his status.
So, I find my skepticsm of the bible to be well founded. And, if that's truly the method God has chosen to reveal himself, it is a very very poor method, particularly when you have access to any communication method known to man (and presumably some unknown to man).
If, on the other hand, multiple witnesses corroborate a story (as is used in criminal proceedings), then the multiple records of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection must demand the respect of historians (who often have only one text speaking to an historical event).
May I suggest the Book of Mormon to you?
|
|
That's a pretty poor method of revelation. I wasn't alive back then, I don't know anyone who was, the revelation was only to his best buds who had a vested interest in perpetuating the idea that Jesus was the son of God, and they recorded their revelation in a book.
May I ask what exactly the apostles gained by making the claims that they did concerning Jesus? They sought no riches. Established no armies. And 12 out of thirteen of them died violent deaths for what they preached. What exactly was the vested material interest?
|
|
This site does a pretty good job explaining some of the problems with the translation of "day" --> Here.
Ah! So it depends on what your definition of is is. You do realize that opens every word in the bible to be interpreted however you want, right?
Yes and no. There is still context. There is still common sense. And the words more than anything typically have a range of "values".
Certain cultures and languages still don't have words for certain things. We had a missionary that was trying to figure out their word for "drop". He held up something and dropped it. "What happened?" "It fell." "Ok, but what did I do?" "Nothing. It fell." The number zero only really came around recently in the grand scheme of things. What would "millions of years" have meant to Moses?
Look at us. We even have different meanings for the same word. Look at "bat". We even have expressions and metaphors that I'm sure would be lost in translation -- "He is a real pig."
I would so hate to be a translator. They actually have Bibles out now that take key words and in parenthesis give every possible word that it could be translated into next to it. (I need to get me one of those.)
1. Every word of Genesis is literally correct, and all observations dealing with the past are wrong unless they're cited word for word in the Bible. All of geology and paleontology are renounced on this basis, with no need to study them. All observations of the fossil record are off-limits. Example: QXL99.
Not at all--that kind of thinking got Galileo into trouble. I love science, just not speculative science. I am more concerned with what science can do for us now and in the future. If the weather can ever be accurately predicted, huzzah!
I love dinosaurs--I just don't accept the straightjacket that says you must believe they predate man by millions of years, or else you can't talk about them.
I appreciate geology for assisting miners, oil drillers, and those who want to build communities that won't be flattened by earthquakes. They also make it safe to build dams and skyscrapers, for which I am grateful.
Some words of Genesis cannot be taken at face value, because they are symblic--and many disagree over the amount and type of symbology. But I believe everything written in the Bible is important--aside from theological reasonbs, the ancients either transmitted information by memorization or laborious handwriting--it is only in the age of movable print, carbon copies, photocopying and electronic media that unneccessary words have become a luxury.
|
|
If, on the other hand, multiple witnesses corroborate a story (as is used in criminal proceedings), then the multiple records of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection must demand the respect of historians (who often have only one text speaking to an historical event).May I suggest the Book of Mormon to you?
Have you actually done any research into those who testified to the book of Mormon and how many of them recanted? Now compare this to the number of apostles who recanted. The church had many opponents in the early going, those who mocked it and wrote critically of it. An apostle who recanted would have had it made and the event would have been widely published. But they did not recant. In point of fact they were willing to die for their testimony.
Why are there no contemporary miracles and prophecies that could be verified by non-partial observers? God was laying the smack-down throughout the entire Old Testament. Did god get bored and wonder off?
I am particularly interested in Buddhism, Kirth. What tenets must you accept under its philosophy?
Certain cultures and languages still don't have words for certain things. We had a missionary that was trying to figure out their word for "drop". He held up something and dropped it. "What happened?" "It fell." "Ok, but what did I do?" "Nothing. It fell."
That is absolutely fascinating... I've always been interested in how language and thought processes interact -- speaking a smattering of both French and German, it's immediately clear to me why the French are excellent at social innuendo, and why the Germans, in contrast, make better engineers. (Not to harp on Jack Vance too much, but he examined this sort of thing taken to sci-fi extremes in The Languages of Pao.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
May I ask what exactly the apostles gained by making the claims that they did concerning Jesus? They sought no riches. Established no armies. And 12 out of thirteen of them died violent deaths for what they preached. What exactly was the vested material interest?
The same things the leaders of any persecuted cult receive. Followers. Fanatics. A symbol to organize around and resist the Romans. A way to induct people into their own tribal-based conflict by inviting them to join a more open religion. Power over the people that followed them.
And, the people who assembled and edited their writings also would have gained from highlighting the martyr element and the plight of Jesus's followers. Portraying the suffering of these men is a good way to buttress your argument that they were persecuted for some important truth. Maybe their lavish lifestyles were not recorded because it would go against the image of them as suffering prophets.
|
|
And, I am not accusing you of this Moff because it is just standard Christian rhetoric issued to all believers, but making it the other person’s fault for not believing is pretty standard social engineering.
Why are you so arrogant that you fail to believe in fairies? You must be the anti-fairy!
Depends on what kind of fairy. ;-)
I for one don't "fault" you. It (Christianity) isn't logical and if circumstances were different, I would be in your shoes right now.
However, in your case, I don't know that you would recognize God if you did "see" him. You've pretty much said that you don't even want to see him. Sebastian has said that he's open to the possiblity of there being a God, but he doesn't know why "mine" is "right" as opposed to others.
I am particularly interested in Buddhism, Kirth. What tenets must you accept under its philosophy?
The core message is summarized succinctly as "The Four Noble Truths": 1. There is suffering in life; 2. Suffering has a cause: specifically, craving/grasping/ego; 3. Suffering can be eliminated by eliminating its cause; 4. The Buddha's "eightfold noble path" is a way to do so.
The Eighfold Path, or the "Middle Way," without spelling it out and getting into interpretatrion, is that by living more correctly, you can eliminate grasping, craving, and ego, and thereby eliminate suffering in your life -- and thereby achieve Satori or "Nirvana" (not the grunge group). Correct living involves focus and practice: not just "be excellent to each other," but also meditate to free your mind from crap, and cultivate "mindfulness" (living fully in the present moment).
Anything outside of that is pretty much non-essential.