Very well said wegs.
Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Oh well.
Depending on what one sets as one's null hypothesis, one will be predisposed toward a particular answer, and particular errors ...
You're quite wrong about that. Some - probabbly many - people are deeply immersed in the cutthroat competition that is life, and they believe it is good and right that it is such a competition.
Like I said in the rest of my post you quoted, but omitted:
Anyway, it's a matter of definitions one works with.
Jan Ardena
Science existed first, from the first time he noticed putting his hand in water made it wet man has been gaining knowledge by doing science. The crudity and limits of the first knowledge led to areas of ignorance(what causes thunder?)and the inability to resolve the question led to simplistic, supernatural explanations(it makes noise to hit rock, thunder must be very big rock, very big rock must be thrown by very big person, very big person not visible, must be god). Religion did not lead to science, lack of scientific knowledge led to religion, the accident of history that most of the educated people(and thus most of the scientists)were in the church just gives the illusion it was the other way round.
Grumpy
Science existed first, from the first time he noticed putting his hand in water made it wet man has been gaining knowledge by doing science. The crudity and limits of the first knowledge led to areas of ignorance(what causes thunder?)and the inability to resolve the question led to simplistic, supernatural explanations(it makes noise to hit rock, thunder must be very big rock, very big rock must be thrown by very big person, very big person not visible, must be god). Religion did not lead to science, lack of scientific knowledge led to religion, the accident of history that most of the educated people(and thus most of the scientists)were in the church just gives the illusion it was the other way round.
Grumpy
Jan Ardena
Science existed first, from the first time he noticed putting his hand in water made it wet man has been gaining knowledge by doing science. The crudity and limits of the first knowledge led to areas of ignorance(what causes thunder?)and the inability to resolve the question led to simplistic, supernatural explanations(it makes noise to hit rock, thunder must be very big rock, very big rock must be thrown by very big person, very big person not visible, must be god). Religion did not lead to science, lack of scientific knowledge led to religion, the accident of history that most of the educated people(and thus most of the scientists)were in the church just gives the illusion it was the other way round.
Grumpy
bolded for emphasis by me
well put; agree. (when I think of religion however, i'm thinking of organized religion that requires a set of 'teachings' and 'rules' to coincide with one's belief in God)
One doesn't 'need' organized religion to believe in God.
My $.02
wegs,
I'm speaking of other holy books, the oldest (written) being the vedas.
Based on what?
Science (method) as we know it today was put together by Christians wanting to understand God's creation.
Then what format can you explain it?
It doesn't have us to believe that He is jealous, petty, and a man eating giant. That is the spin put on it by those who are anti-God.
Why do you believe God is the creator?
Did He simply create nature, then proceed to let nature do it's own thing come what may?
If yes, why do you believe that, and also why do you believe in this creator??
Why isn't it true? Because God can't construct body from the earth and breath life into it?
Isn't that compromising God's ability? You believe He created this whole universe, and any other universes, but is unable to use that same potency to create a living man from the dust?
In the same way you think that believer can't accept evolution, the non believers can't accept creation so they created the evolution story. It works both ways. And by evolution I mean the darwinian concept of evolution.
The talking snake/serpent could easily be another type of being that lived on the earth in those times. Plenty of cultures have stories of humanoids that were not human in the ancient past. There is also historical references, not to mention modern day testimony of different types of beings, and in alot of these cases we understand that these beings are more scientifically advanced than humans.
It mentions nothing about ''magic apples'', and further more there is no reason why we should assume that the fruit was a fruit, instead of off-spring (which is closer to the hebrew meaning). Trying to make it sound ridiculous doesn't make it so. Before you dismiss it, you should really try gain different understandings of the texts, in a bid to make a reasonable connection, instead of following the Christian/Athiest brainwashing attempt.
I'm sure you recognize that this isn't one of those times. Faith doesn't even come into it as this stage.
I don't see how you can realize that the Bible creation story is created by man.
It say's ''In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth''. Everything else is brought forth, meaning that those day's weren't the first time those organisms were brought into existence. It is the Christian ideology, and the atheist objections that you are using to draw your conclusions. I suggest that for our discussion we put both those ideologies to the back burner and see what happens.
That's cool, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying I'm right. We are in a discussion in which I represent one side, and you represent the other side. That's why we are here, and that's what we enjoy. Your saying things that I could take personally as a derogatory swipe, and I'm sure I'm saying things that could make you feel that way. But the reality is, I can't hurt you, and you can't hurt me, because we don't know each other.
In what way?
How do you know this?
Don't you mean compiled or translated?
Truth is truth, whether it's about my beliefs or not. Truth can only be understood fully via experience, so believe that the Bible is truth is really a nonsense, a bit like falling in love with someone you don't know exists. Truth, to me, is something that always is. It is not created, and it never ceases to be (just like the definition of God), and the only thing that prevents us from knowing the truth is our perspective based on our understanding of ourselves in relation to it. It is something to be realized not learned, what we can learn is how to condition ourselves so that our perception is grounded in reality.
What makes you think that Adam and Eve were the very first human beings of all time. Even in genesis 1 it states ''let us make mankind in our own image...''. It doesn't mean that they were the very first creation. So unless we are locked the Abrahamic religions, there is no reason to assume they were the first ever.
Wasn't that intervention based on descendants of Abraham as opposed to the entire world?
Burn in hell if you don't do as God say's? Really?
Where does it say that? Or is this yet another religious injunction?
Obviously not. But as you're no longer under the program why don't you look at other scriptures and get a broader idea of who and what God is, without the pressure of having to convert to anything. I personally recommend the Bhagavad Gita.
I'm not saying that it, or anything, should.
That's cool. But also remember, if that works for you and is acceptable, then what works for others can also be cool due to their position.
Just to let you know, I constructed this thread for you, because of our brief interaction in the ''Denial of Evolution'' thread, so I'm glad we're having this discussion. And I'm impressed that you are not perturbed by the thuggish behavior that has been displayed by other posters.
The best people to front darwinian evolution are theistic evolutionists, they are so much more cooler, rational, and reasonable.
jan.
I'm speaking of other holy books, the oldest (written) being the vedas.
Based on what?
Science (method) as we know it today was put together by Christians wanting to understand God's creation.
Then what format can you explain it?
It doesn't have us to believe that He is jealous, petty, and a man eating giant. That is the spin put on it by those who are anti-God.
Why do you believe God is the creator?
Did He simply create nature, then proceed to let nature do it's own thing come what may?
If yes, why do you believe that, and also why do you believe in this creator??
Why isn't it true? Because God can't construct body from the earth and breath life into it?
Isn't that compromising God's ability? You believe He created this whole universe, and any other universes, but is unable to use that same potency to create a living man from the dust?
In the same way you think that believer can't accept evolution, the non believers can't accept creation so they created the evolution story. It works both ways. And by evolution I mean the darwinian concept of evolution.
The talking snake/serpent could easily be another type of being that lived on the earth in those times. Plenty of cultures have stories of humanoids that were not human in the ancient past. There is also historical references, not to mention modern day testimony of different types of beings, and in alot of these cases we understand that these beings are more scientifically advanced than humans.
It mentions nothing about ''magic apples'', and further more there is no reason why we should assume that the fruit was a fruit, instead of off-spring (which is closer to the hebrew meaning). Trying to make it sound ridiculous doesn't make it so. Before you dismiss it, you should really try gain different understandings of the texts, in a bid to make a reasonable connection, instead of following the Christian/Athiest brainwashing attempt.
I'm sure you recognize that this isn't one of those times. Faith doesn't even come into it as this stage.
I don't see how you can realize that the Bible creation story is created by man.
It say's ''In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth''. Everything else is brought forth, meaning that those day's weren't the first time those organisms were brought into existence. It is the Christian ideology, and the atheist objections that you are using to draw your conclusions. I suggest that for our discussion we put both those ideologies to the back burner and see what happens.
That's cool, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying I'm right. We are in a discussion in which I represent one side, and you represent the other side. That's why we are here, and that's what we enjoy. Your saying things that I could take personally as a derogatory swipe, and I'm sure I'm saying things that could make you feel that way. But the reality is, I can't hurt you, and you can't hurt me, because we don't know each other.
In what way?
How do you know this?
Don't you mean compiled or translated?
Truth is truth, whether it's about my beliefs or not. Truth can only be understood fully via experience, so believe that the Bible is truth is really a nonsense, a bit like falling in love with someone you don't know exists. Truth, to me, is something that always is. It is not created, and it never ceases to be (just like the definition of God), and the only thing that prevents us from knowing the truth is our perspective based on our understanding of ourselves in relation to it. It is something to be realized not learned, what we can learn is how to condition ourselves so that our perception is grounded in reality.
What makes you think that Adam and Eve were the very first human beings of all time. Even in genesis 1 it states ''let us make mankind in our own image...''. It doesn't mean that they were the very first creation. So unless we are locked the Abrahamic religions, there is no reason to assume they were the first ever.
Wasn't that intervention based on descendants of Abraham as opposed to the entire world?
Burn in hell if you don't do as God say's? Really?
Where does it say that? Or is this yet another religious injunction?
Obviously not. But as you're no longer under the program why don't you look at other scriptures and get a broader idea of who and what God is, without the pressure of having to convert to anything. I personally recommend the Bhagavad Gita.
I'm not saying that it, or anything, should.
That's cool. But also remember, if that works for you and is acceptable, then what works for others can also be cool due to their position.
Just to let you know, I constructed this thread for you, because of our brief interaction in the ''Denial of Evolution'' thread, so I'm glad we're having this discussion. And I'm impressed that you are not perturbed by the thuggish behavior that has been displayed by other posters.
The best people to front darwinian evolution are theistic evolutionists, they are so much more cooler, rational, and reasonable.
jan.
Grumpy,
Great! All hail the father of science! The first bloke to get his hand wet.
Can you answer the questions I put to you please (including the one regarding Lamaitre's testimony on his belief in God).
jan.
Great! All hail the father of science! The first bloke to get his hand wet.
Can you answer the questions I put to you please (including the one regarding Lamaitre's testimony on his belief in God).
jan.
wegs,
What does this have to do with anything I've said in this thread?
In fact, if I'm not mistaken I've decided not to invoke religion at all in this thread.
jan.
What does this have to do with anything I've said in this thread?
In fact, if I'm not mistaken I've decided not to invoke religion at all in this thread.
jan.
Jan Ardena
Good, you got my point. Man's intelligent investigation of his environment came long before his invention of gods. AND it is only the failures in his attempts at understanding reality that led to the need for supernatural explanations in the first place.
Dude, I defend your right to ask stupid questions to the exact degree and to the extent that I reserve my right to ignore them(except to point and laugh). If you have a problem with a Catholic Jesuit Priest's word of his belief in god(never mind dedicating his whole life to such belief), that's your problem(I think you are both delusional on that point). I accept it is most likely he does, most sane people would expect the same from a priest unless there was evidence to the contrary(outside of those arguing "No real Scotsman..." arguments of religious intolerance). Only a troll would make an issue of it, simply to be trollish as is their custom.
Grumpy
Good, you got my point. Man's intelligent investigation of his environment came long before his invention of gods. AND it is only the failures in his attempts at understanding reality that led to the need for supernatural explanations in the first place.
Dude, I defend your right to ask stupid questions to the exact degree and to the extent that I reserve my right to ignore them(except to point and laugh). If you have a problem with a Catholic Jesuit Priest's word of his belief in god(never mind dedicating his whole life to such belief), that's your problem(I think you are both delusional on that point). I accept it is most likely he does, most sane people would expect the same from a priest unless there was evidence to the contrary(outside of those arguing "No real Scotsman..." arguments of religious intolerance). Only a troll would make an issue of it, simply to be trollish as is their custom.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
And you KNOW that gods were invented how?
Dude, you are of the simplistic opinion that the clothes maketh the man, and I simply cannot defend against that anymore than I can defend against small child's thinking that the house he lives in cost £100. But the truth of the matter is that one is not a theist because one is a priest, vicar, arch-bishop, or pope. Theism is real, it's not a declaration.
It's not very hard to detect if someone does or does not believe in God..... for some.
jan.
And you KNOW that gods were invented how?
Dude, you are of the simplistic opinion that the clothes maketh the man, and I simply cannot defend against that anymore than I can defend against small child's thinking that the house he lives in cost £100. But the truth of the matter is that one is not a theist because one is a priest, vicar, arch-bishop, or pope. Theism is real, it's not a declaration.
It's not very hard to detect if someone does or does not believe in God..... for some.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
IMO, the concept of god(s) was a result of evolving intelligence and analytical powers in early hominids, but rooted in the much older "flight or fight" instinct.
This very early hominid behavior can be observed today in chimpanzees.
A filmed presentation by a group of researchers on the behavior of the great apes, taken during a monsoon storm, clearly shows the troupe hiding (cowering) as best they could under bushes and trees from the rain and thunder/lightning, shuddering with fear at every thunderclap.
Then the film shows an alpha male, overcoming the flight instinct and deciding to make a stand against this unseen "enemy" who is threatening him and his family with all that noise and lightning and making him wet and uncomfortable.
This alpha began with mock charges into a clearing and run around screaming and beating on the bushes to scare away this powerful adversary, before hastily retreating back and cautiously observing the results of his aggressive defense. Becoming ever bolder this alpha picked up a stick and started beating the ground, then the bushes, and finally lifting the stick high above his head toward the source of his fear, screaming and jumping up and down and stomping the ground as if to say "this my territory and I'll defend it."
Of course this was a useless exercise, but just at that time the rain stopped and this alpha gave one last warning as the troupe emerged from the bushes and gathered around their brave leader. This scene convinced me that here was a clear indication of a passive/aggressive behavior overcoming the flight instinct to ward off an unseen but powerful enemy.
And thus the first god of thunder and lightning was "invented" by a still primitive but evolving intelligence. From there it is no great leap to regard the sun, which gives warmth and comfort, as a god. Hence the Sungod, etc. Other unexplained phenomena became "miracles of the gods". This is why there were so many gods in days of old. There was a god for almost every unexplainable human experience.
Prayer and offerings to appease or please the gods was the next step in ritualizing our communication with the gods, and still later these fledgling religions were formalized into the sophisticated psychological control structures we see today in religions.
God was not invented by man, but by much older hominids. This is why the concept of a supernatural causality is so persistent.
Write4U
Any hominid that has the imagination to understand the concept of god would qualify as a man(human), whatever his outward appearance. Otherwise I agree with your post. I would also point out, again, that it is the failure to understand some things(lightning, thunder)as he understood others(water wet, fire burn)that led man's intellect to invent "rational" explanations of the unknown based on his current understanding of reality. So every god in history is limited to the technology of that god's inventors,(Thor and Odin did not call each other on smart phones)or claims of magical powers are made which, themselves are indicative of the civilization of the inventor(ie the god of the sun in Greek mythology rides a magical chariot, pulled by magical steeds, not a Maserati or a Space Shuttle).
Jan should probably just avoid the subject, his god is one of the newer ones to be invented, but he is limited to flaming swords(Bronze Age), Scientology has space craft from some other galaxy or some such nuttery.
Grumpy
Any hominid that has the imagination to understand the concept of god would qualify as a man(human), whatever his outward appearance. Otherwise I agree with your post. I would also point out, again, that it is the failure to understand some things(lightning, thunder)as he understood others(water wet, fire burn)that led man's intellect to invent "rational" explanations of the unknown based on his current understanding of reality. So every god in history is limited to the technology of that god's inventors,(Thor and Odin did not call each other on smart phones)or claims of magical powers are made which, themselves are indicative of the civilization of the inventor(ie the god of the sun in Greek mythology rides a magical chariot, pulled by magical steeds, not a Maserati or a Space Shuttle).
Jan should probably just avoid the subject, his god is one of the newer ones to be invented, but he is limited to flaming swords(Bronze Age), Scientology has space craft from some other galaxy or some such nuttery.
Grumpy
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Actually I said "unseen enemy" (pertaining to the flight or fight response). I did not want to imply they had a concept of god, that came much later. But the Alpha chimp obviously was defending his family from a powerful unseen (unidentifiable) force.
I completely agree. The evolving concept of god(s) probably paralleled the evolutionary process of rationality and ability to communicate abstract concepts. The thrust of my post was that the Alpha (hominid) reacted to an unseen force (threat) but that the concept of an intentional god was refined and ritualized later. But it was not too long ago that mental and other illnesses were still considered to be demonic possession, hence the practice of exorcisms.
The closing sentence was more a play of words on an old expression that Man invented God.
Because we are adequately literate. We can distinguish superstition, myth, legend and fable from all other rhetoric. Not only were gods invented but also their demigods, pantheons, spirits, apparitions, souls, saints, angels, demons, dragons, heavens, hells, magic, miracles, omniscience, omnipresence, levitation, reanimation, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, visions, voices, spells, incantations, conjuration, and all other paranormal, hallucinatory and dream-like phenomena that religions claim are capable of suspending the laws of nature in order to sustain a belief that the invented gods are real.
On the contrary: theism, as you are using the term, is a way of claiming belief in the religion of Catholics or Anglicans, while denying any obligation to follow the church rites and precepts. Theism, then, is the practice of the same religion as an ex-communicant. You are not participating in any of the communities that follow the same religion as you do, because you feel that the churches are defective. Thus theism means a Re-reformed Reformation, the one that walks up to the thesis Martin Luther nailed on the church door, and nails another page on top which says "Count me out." That, jan, is a declaration. Notice how none of this has anything to do with which religion is "real". You are just disavowing Christian rites and precepts. "Theism" becomes a neo-Puritan reaction to churches. That's completely different from declaring for or against the core beliefs of Christianity, and altogether different from the discussion that differentiates Christian fundamentalism from orthodoxy. All that's at stake in this thread, and the culture wars at large, is whether Biblical literalism should prevail over science - esp. in the classroom. Fundies say yes, while orthodoxy, science, and the courts say no.
What does that have to do with choosing whether to follow church rites and precepts, or embracing fundamentalism, or promoting academic freedom?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This did not make sense to you, Jan? Can you clarify what appears to be nonsense? Look at it in context of primitive but emerging intelligence.
IMO, that clip seems to confirm the longer and more detailed study I was referring to (I wish I could find it again). But except for the small segment where the alpha is showing his defiance of the thing that makes loud noises and fire in the sky, this clip speaks more of community behavior, which to me seems very much humanlike. In the west we shake hands (a sign of friendship), in Japan they bow to each other (a sign of respect), in theism we bow, kneel, end even touch forehead to the ground (Islam), in Catholicism we kiss the pope's ring, nuns "marry" Christ by lying prostrate, all expressions of submission to a greater authority, physical or imagined.
But the Bonobos greet each other (and even strangers) by sharing food and lovemaking. Seems we haven't changed much in that respect. Do apes behave like humans, or do humans still display ape behaviors (albeit in a more sophisticated way)?
These behaviors are not seen in still older species like crocodiles and lizards and other amphibians. They tend to be solitary and are not socially adapted; they are still stuck in the fundamental flight or fight instinct.
But submission and friendship rituals do go far back in time. Expressions of this type of behavior can be found in many social mammals which have an established patriarch or matriarch.
These little clips take us back in time when those primitive ritual displays were developing and evolving for a good and natural reason. Is all that nonsense? I call it evidence of evolutionary processes.
This greatly interests me, I plan to check it out.
Because I don't accept science's answer of 'uncaused' as to what started the universe. What came before the Big Bang? They don't know. And frankly, you and I as believers in God, 'don't know.' But, perhaps it is a deep desire I have to believe that we are not here...by chance. That the order with which science has put things in motion, has a Creator. It just seems too ordered to be random. (if that makes sense)
No, I hear you...but, there can't be two diametrically opposed schools of thought as to the origin of man. We either evolved or we were created as it states in Genesis. The fact that there are fossils, and plenty of evidence to support the fact that man has been around for far longer than 6000 years (6,000 yrs is what the Bible would have us believe), it's just not plausible. God can do anything he wishes true, but one must choose which school of thought to follow.
See my reply above...
Jan...it's ironic you bring this up. Just yesterday, a friend of mine who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, told me that he believes that 'carbon dating' is way off on the fossils.
I tried not to laugh, but come on. I said...you honestly believe that man originated from dust 6000 or so years ago? As we continued to talk, he asked me where I came up with 6,000 years. I said, if you date back from Jesus, the lineage to Adam and Eve, being generous even with mortality rates...I'll stretch it to 10,000 years. But, most Bible scholars and historians say 6000 years as to the lineage from Jesus to Genesis. Or visa versa. You and I have discussed this very thing in this thread, so I won't bore you again lol But, it was funny how it came up with my friend yesterday. He looked surprised. Yep...I said, there's a whole big world out there beyond what the Bible would have us believe. (He's Christian)Pretty unlikely
I will ignore that jab.
Who was there to confirm the Adam & Eve story? The Catholic Church put together the very first Bible. The Bible you read today, complete with missing Gospels (aka Gnostic Gospels)...was put together by early Catholic church 'fathers.' They simply didn't know anything about science at that time, and while I do believe the Bible has some holy texts as a part of it, I believe Genesis to be a total fabrication, in order to tie the book together. I used to believe like you Jan, but it's just not plausible. Faith is the belief in things unseen, yes...but that doesn't mean we dismiss logic. You know?
I've enjoyed this discussion, yes.
what do you mean by translated?
bolded for emphasis by me...
oh? then who was?
I honestly forgot about that!
You're right, we started in the ''Denial'' thread...why thank you for constructing this thread, then. *tips hat* It's been I'd say, a fruitful discussion. It's best when it doesn't swerve off the beaten path, your OP.Is that what I am? lol I like that 'title.'
It's been a pleasure, Jan. I deleted some of your quotes, not because I'm ignoring them, but because I need to go back and make sure I'm following where they came from, initially.
The Rig-Veda is believed to be very old, but the Egyptian Pyramid texts and the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh are older. Unless I'm mistaken the belief in the age of the Rig-Veda is based on content. It's my understanding that the oldest surviving manuscripts are only about 500-600 yrs. old. A lot of religious artifacts are older than that. The Dead Sea Scrolls would certainly be older, dating to approx. 5th c. BCE.
The difficulty with understanding the 'uncaused' universe is that time is standing still at the instant of the Big Bang. The logical inference is that there can be no cause, no earlier event than the onset of the Big Bang itself.
That of course refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis, which is a fundamentalist position. Jan is advocating for the truth of fundamentalism but calling it theism which is incorrect. Fundamentalism is a belief in the absolute truth of the literally interpreted Bible which is all that is at stake here. The existence of fossils demonstrates the error of maintaining that position, which is why the creation science sites have worked so feverishly to prove that all of those fossils were laid down during a global flood, or that all of paleontology is wrong - that radiometric dating is flawed and so on. Fundamentalism denies history, archaeology, and cultural paleontology as well. It denies exegesis, which is the systematic study of Biblical truth. Add to this the denial of biology and geology, and you have huge segments of all scholarship which fundamentalists must deny in order to cling to the belief that the Bible must be literally interpreted. Those other schools of thought you mention would certainly include all of the churches which maintain universities with accredited programs in these fields, particularly those engaged in academic research in these fields. This is not only a recent issue. Throughout history - esp. before the Reformation, the Church has had to deal with questions of fact that contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible. The general tendency over 1000 yrs. or so has been to arrive at the conclusion that the fundamentalist school of thought is in error. As it turns out, the fact that fundamentalists are Protestants makes it convenient to dismiss these older thinkers who were Catholics as being invalid. Yet the Catholics selected the materials they call their Bible (minus the books the Protestants removed). Jan takes this further by arguing that membership in a church - organized religion in general - invalidates a person's beliefs.
People are very gullible. The man who started this crazy notion was James Ussher, an Irish Protestant minister who wrote a prologue to an English Bible about 150 yrs. ago. It became the linchpin for fundamentalism. This is what they hold up - evidence from the literally interpreted Bible - as their substitute for all scholarly work that deals with such matters. Incidentally, carbon dating only deals with more recent tissues which have not yet fossilized. There are several other elements (other than carbon) that are found in fossils that can be dated by measuring their radioactivity levels. The point is that objects gradually go radioactive as they age. That rate of decay is very precise. Because the quantities are very small the there is a small margin of error but it's insignificant. It's a common mistake when fundamentalists hear this to assume that the small errors invalidate the dating methods. But they don't. It's not different that saying a baby is a year old on its birthday, while you really mean 1 yr. plus or minus so many hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds . . . etc. The kid is still a year old. The point here is that humans have existed for millions of years in several physical forms. That's plus or minus so many tens of thousands of years which is irrelevant. For millions of years these humans were intelligent enough to chip rocks into tools and weapons used to aid in their survival. (2.6 million is the current estimate.) We don't even need to accept evolution to agree on this. It's just a matter of learning a little about paleontology. But it takes a little chemistry, physics and math to learn how radiometric dating works. Of course this is where all error lies in the search for truth - separating knowledge from false belief. The harm done by fundamentalism is that it's so intent on spreading false beliefs, just to shore up the idea that their Bible must be literally interpreted. It's not a question of belief in God at all. It's a question of belief in a method of reading.Just yesterday, a friend of mine who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, told me that he believes that 'carbon dating' is way off on the fossils.
That corroborates my earlier remarks. Any fundamentalist argument against Catholicism shoots itself in the foot. The Bible was not given to them by God but by Catholics. There was some form of a Bible before the time of Jerome (St Jerome to you guys) but he was instrumental in separating the texts and deciding what to leave in and what to leave out. Another person of importance in this matter was Eusebius, a librarian at the Library of Alexandria (Egypt) which once owned the largest collection of writings in the world. Eusebius was instrumental in declaring which writings were heretical and which were authentic. Both men were obviously Catholic. Fundies don't seem to know their own history at all.
Your comment about tying the book together reminds me of this. If you read Gen 1 you get the creation story. Then when you read Gen 2 the story starts over, but the facts are different. Then if you go look up the Hebrew used in the "original" (no one knows what that means - you just have to rely on the oldest text available) - then you notice that in Gen 1 "Elohim" does the creating and in Gen 2 "Yahweh" does the creating. These are not the same God. "Elohim" is probably a reference to the Phoenician (Ugaritic) pantheon of gods. In any case it's plural in the Hebrew much as the word "Godhead" refers to a plurality of gods. It's also why there are sentences like "We created them in our image." This tells us the early Israelites were polytheists, just like the older cultures in their area. It's somewhat of a mystery why they left this in and started over with the version in Ch. 2 where Yahweh does the creating, but the best explanation is that there was a schism in the beginning of the religion, the one which led to the adoption of monotheism under Yahweh, and out of a desire to keep the tribes united they left both accounts in. The other side of this is that they adopted a law which established the permanence of Genesis even after the followers of Elohim died out.
I no longer need wikipedia, when you are here.
This is great...thanks for the summation, and I'll be doing some research to this effect.
My understanding is that the beginning of time is marked by the BB. But, was there "time" before the BB? Scientists say no. But, how does something form from "nothing?" I suppose that is where I believe that a "higher power" is responsible, and thus marks the beginning of time. (Time being infinite, in my opinion) Science can only prove time's finite nature. Faith believes in the infinite.
I don't disagree but two things to keep in mind here:
1) Jan isn't a fundamentalist.
2) Catholics (many) cling to the fact that Genesis is literal.
Very well put. It's sad that people will read a prologue and then feel that is an infallible interpretation of what they may be about to read.
I've read many reflections over the years, and so it's not unacceptable to read different interpretations, but at the end of the day...one must ask the question, what is in it for this person to have written this prologue? For some, the reasons are genuine, and there's a true desire to explain things to lay folk...but, for others...the reasons are not genuine, rather there is a desire to get people to believe something simply not so. Things that make ya go hmmm, Aqueous.
Another excellent point. Yes, you have explained this QUITE well. The Bible was 'given' to man by clergy men of an early Catholic Church. We can say the Word of God was translated to men, for the purpose of spreading the ''good news,'' and the Gospels do have solid roots as coming from discovered holy texts. But, there is much of the Bible that one can honestly see is a conconction from man, himself. God is not petty and jealous and all the rest of the 'human' emotions. I realize the bible says...God made man in his image, yeah...not the other way around. If you step back and read the Bible objectively, it's as though man created God, rather than the other way around. The NT is a bit different in that regard, as Jesus comes on the scene, and the story takes a different turn.
This should be underscored. I can't add much to this, because it really does make one wonder why the story kept 'changing.' Mosaic Law destroyed polytheism though, and thus the story of one God, a triune God...takes shape. As always Aqueous, you bring good stuff to the table.
Last edited:
AqueosID,
The Rig Veda is a collection of inspired songs or hymns and is a main source of information on the Rig Vedic civilization. It is the oldest book in any Indo-European language and contains the earliest form of all Sanskrit mantras that date back to 1500 B.C. - 1000 B.C. Some scholars date the Rig Veda as early as 12000 BC - 4000 B.C.
So the logical conclusion is that out of zero comes 1?
Seems more logical to infer that from 1 comes everything, including the concept of zero.
Whichever way you look at it, something coming from nothing is anything but logical.
Firstly, ''theism'' is to me what I have always maintained, ''belief in God'', and for this, one does not have to be a ''fundamentalist''. It stands to reason as not everyone has access to scriptures, but yet religion (submission to God ---------> to love God) is a human ability, not a 'some humans who are lucky enough to have access to scriptures' privilege.
I gave some examples of the difference between religion (institutional forms) and theism. Because one is religious it doesn't mean one is a theist (even if they think they are). Eventually the truth comes out, even if only to oneself. The proof is there.
More like one who believes that the Bible should be interpreted literally.
Are the creation sites interpreting the Bible literally, though? It seems they are not.
Not necessarily. There is nothing to say that the earth is 6000 years old, it say's ''In the beginning the God created the heavens and the earth, period. ''The beginning' is the only time reference we have in the Bible.
They haven't been interpreting the Bible as ''literal'' as you would like to think, the discussion between myself and Rav highlight this.
The Bible does not instruct one to deny any knowledge, yet Christianity imposes this on it's followers.
You are making the same error as the ''fundamentalists'' in that you read what I say, then come to a conclusion that suits your thinking. A theist is a theist, period. It is the institute of Christianity which is faulty, not the followers. They are faithfully following the tenets of their religion, putting their trust in the institutional leaders.
You do realize that from this statement you agree with me that ''fundamentalism'' isn't really fundamentalism if they have to ''shore up the idea that their Bible must be literally interpreted'' and doing this by ''spreading false belief''?
The story doesn't ''start over'' in Gen 2, it pinpoints a specific generation which descended from the heavens.
Genesis 2.4 ''This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.''
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
First impression can leave you with the idea that God had just finished making the earth, and there were no people on it. That's understandable, but it doesn't make sense. Genesis 1.2 states...
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters..
Note that in both verses the time reference is ''Now'', indicating that both are the same time, so at that time the earth was formless (no biological forms).
On the sixth day God says ''
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Genesis 2.7 ''Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.''
This act of creation is clearly different to the creation of mankind as stated earlier.
From the perspective of the Qur'an (probably omitted from the Bible), it say's...
Note that it does not say ''I am going to place a new species known as mankind on the earth, and the angels to whom He is talking with do not question 'what is mankind', they appear to already know to the point of asking if they are going ''to place those who will make mischief and shed blood''
So now Allah say's He is going to create a human, but this human is not an ordinary human like the mankind humans. He is special, he has been created with special materials, and Allah, personally breathed His essence into him, so the angels (associates) were instructed to worship this human, as one would worship God.
So even here we can understand that Adam is not the first ever human being, and now we can understand where Cain got his wife from, or why he built a city, or why he was worried that he would be killed if seen with the mark on his head.
jan.
The Rig Veda is a collection of inspired songs or hymns and is a main source of information on the Rig Vedic civilization. It is the oldest book in any Indo-European language and contains the earliest form of all Sanskrit mantras that date back to 1500 B.C. - 1000 B.C. Some scholars date the Rig Veda as early as 12000 BC - 4000 B.C.
So the logical conclusion is that out of zero comes 1?
Seems more logical to infer that from 1 comes everything, including the concept of zero.
Whichever way you look at it, something coming from nothing is anything but logical.
Firstly, ''theism'' is to me what I have always maintained, ''belief in God'', and for this, one does not have to be a ''fundamentalist''. It stands to reason as not everyone has access to scriptures, but yet religion (submission to God ---------> to love God) is a human ability, not a 'some humans who are lucky enough to have access to scriptures' privilege.
I gave some examples of the difference between religion (institutional forms) and theism. Because one is religious it doesn't mean one is a theist (even if they think they are). Eventually the truth comes out, even if only to oneself. The proof is there.
More like one who believes that the Bible should be interpreted literally.
Are the creation sites interpreting the Bible literally, though? It seems they are not.
Not necessarily. There is nothing to say that the earth is 6000 years old, it say's ''In the beginning the God created the heavens and the earth, period. ''The beginning' is the only time reference we have in the Bible.
They haven't been interpreting the Bible as ''literal'' as you would like to think, the discussion between myself and Rav highlight this.
The Bible does not instruct one to deny any knowledge, yet Christianity imposes this on it's followers.
You are making the same error as the ''fundamentalists'' in that you read what I say, then come to a conclusion that suits your thinking. A theist is a theist, period. It is the institute of Christianity which is faulty, not the followers. They are faithfully following the tenets of their religion, putting their trust in the institutional leaders.
You do realize that from this statement you agree with me that ''fundamentalism'' isn't really fundamentalism if they have to ''shore up the idea that their Bible must be literally interpreted'' and doing this by ''spreading false belief''?
The story doesn't ''start over'' in Gen 2, it pinpoints a specific generation which descended from the heavens.
Genesis 2.4 ''This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.''
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
First impression can leave you with the idea that God had just finished making the earth, and there were no people on it. That's understandable, but it doesn't make sense. Genesis 1.2 states...
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters..
Note that in both verses the time reference is ''Now'', indicating that both are the same time, so at that time the earth was formless (no biological forms).
On the sixth day God says ''
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Genesis 2.7 ''Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.''
This act of creation is clearly different to the creation of mankind as stated earlier.
From the perspective of the Qur'an (probably omitted from the Bible), it say's...
Note that it does not say ''I am going to place a new species known as mankind on the earth, and the angels to whom He is talking with do not question 'what is mankind', they appear to already know to the point of asking if they are going ''to place those who will make mischief and shed blood''
So now Allah say's He is going to create a human, but this human is not an ordinary human like the mankind humans. He is special, he has been created with special materials, and Allah, personally breathed His essence into him, so the angels (associates) were instructed to worship this human, as one would worship God.
So even here we can understand that Adam is not the first ever human being, and now we can understand where Cain got his wife from, or why he built a city, or why he was worried that he would be killed if seen with the mark on his head.
jan.