"but there's no doubt that sunday school teaching will leave a person clueless about this subject."
maybe, but you wont learn much about it in a science class either. can that statement be proven scientifically? When was the last time you sat in a sunday school class. did you actually go to every sunday school class in the world or at least a representable sample?
"think to "prove" the "theory" of mutation via selection, you might only have to show a change in genes of a certain measurement(not sure what that would be)."
that would just produce a result - that would say "this measurement of change in genes happened-" but now you have to leap to a conclusion which is no problem for monkeys but in a rational and logical world its bad science. But really this is the problem people take data and manipulate it to mean whatever they want- there is no connection
even if you got the results you wanted that would not prove that it is true - gene selection does not = new species- theorhetically you could have gene selection but never cross the species line. In other words their could be limits on how far selection could go. You could even have new species and also have a creation for the original origin of man. We assume that even if there is a possibility of a new species being selectively born that that process could not start anywhere on the chain and not necessarily be traced all the way back to a one celled water born creature. we havent seen incremental examples of this selective process happening-or a new species coming from another one.
point: it would take time to produce conclusive results. really the ability to examine genes on any level has only been possible since the 40's. Will examining genes give any information even relevant to the issue?
what is wrong with a clean brain? you are also brainwashed by the ACLU and/ or your parents- you have a specific world view and you think you are right- even though you cant prove it- but you accuse Christians of doing the same thing- we call that hypocrasy- or lying and that is much closer to cretanism-The Cretans were liars- they are even mentioned in the Bible.
read genesis- and try to be objective -the aim of the book is not to give a comprehensive genetic line from the first man but to trace the major connections in the hereditary line. it has its value
it would be nice to hear something other than political rhetoric. we are still avoiding the question- can we scientifically study whether the biological world was designed? i say yes. What are people affraid of?
I actually did read the Bible. I went to Catholic School. You know what they taught in all of the science classes? Evolution. You know what they didn't teach in science classes? Creationism. The reason is that all (ALL) of the evidence fits in with the theory of evolution.
The Theory (the definition you are looking for is: Webster's: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" so don't pull that "Its not a law" crap because you cannot understand that in the English language a word might have different definition depending on its context.) itself evolves based on new information, discoveries and methods. But it has yet to find something that does not in time find its way into the Theory. Every Creationist arguement either requires supposition, cites the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence "nobody was there" and a need of seperability of an integrated system.
I should point out that if you are to follow Creationism, you will also need to believe in other scientific "truths" of the Bible:
The World is Flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
There is a physical dome which covers the (flat) earth - This supports all of the stars and planets.
Spontanious generation.
I personally find the First Chapter of Genesis to be one of the most beautiful and poetic in the whole book. To look at it like a science textbook is ludicrous. Iif what you're doing is reducing it to that, I don't see how you can truely understand the grandure of his creation.
I guess the real question is, why are you afraid of reality?
let's get this silly persecuted obsession out of the way. general sentimate in the US is "we hate Christians and Christians are stupid". If that was said about anyone else the ACLU would be allover it but since they are the instigators of the proganda war
i've read at least once, within the last ten years of a legal case in which ACLU defended standard religious rights.
general US sentiment is: "i'm spiritual. i cuss, and i'll probably wonder more about any afterlife when i'm dying." It's quite funny to read all of the overpaid "christian" leaches wailing about being persecuted one second, then the next second, claiming they are the majority. i guess they're persecuting themselves.
ask anyone where a local church is, and most will recall quite a few, even if they've only drive them. then ask them where the local ACLU is.
ask them what they know specifically about the ACLU. probably most will answer: "there were a bunch of nazis that wanted to march somewhere, and i guess the city council refused the permit, and i guess the ACLU won a case they filed, probably on grounds of freedom of speech or discrimination. otherwise, i don't know anything about the ACLU"
"because it is not testable -...
evolution is a scientific theory. it is able to be subjected to scientific method, having started as a hypothesis and grown into common acceptance through a history of testing and learning. because it is a tested theory, it is relevant to science classes. no credible scientists i've read have yet called it 'fact'."
true. nothing is fact. nothing is completely, absolutely reproducible.
tomorrow 2+2 may =5.617904
we won't know for sure until tomorrow comes. we can't assume tomorrow will exist. the next second maybe will not exist.
but how we see evolution- we dont really know what it is or what significance it holds but we have elevated it to god like status. its weird- imagine if we did the same with quantum physics or gravity.
jerry farkwell is going to harangue physicists next?
i never noticed anyone "worshipping" biological selection or quantum physics.
When was the last time you sat in a sunday school class. did you actually go to every sunday school class in the world or at least a representable sample?
never been to one, but one person (crowbert) has replied that their Catholic school taught "evolution". i don't know whether they taught it on "Sundays", but i wrote "sunday school" as as a symbolic name for religious schools. and apparently at least one teaches "evolution". from that, i'll assume that others do too. Which is reassuring. And i think it's fine if they teach it throroughly, then add that they don't believe it.
intelligent design is creationism and is a set of religious beliefs, despite what some christians say, and belongs not in schools, but in churches, or at least in religion or philosophy classes. biology classes, where evolutionary theory is taught, do not seek to explain the origins of the universe, which evolutions does not address, so there is no need to discuss such matters. the catholic church and many progressive protestant churches simply believe that god provided for evolution in his creation and accept the creation story as the excellent parable it is. now, i am an atheist, but know enough about christian theology and the bible as a layperson to feel comfortable saying that christians can believe and practice whatever they want as long as they keep it out of schools and public policy, especially regarding science and health (such as intelligent design, stem cells....). while i'm pro-choice, i'll even give you guys abortion on the moral issue.
but before you go off on how great the bible is and how factual it is, don't forget that the bible has been used to defend the genoicide of native americans by purtian christian settlers (claiming that they were not accounted for in the biblical explaination of the spread of the human race across the earth), as well as many other autrocities. also, the bible is not an entirely accurate translation and the idea of literalist interpretation is only a few centuries old. furthermore, the bible is the result of a political compromise regarding which books should be included, as well as the removal of several books from the catholic bible by protestant reformists. in my view, even when i still believed in a god, the bible was not the word of god, but the words of men, sometimes great and godly men, but men.
anyway, one of my favorite quotes about this whole thing is this from a book about divisiveness in America that compares human evolution to the evolution of nations and governments...
"It does not matter if you believe in the the theory of evolution or not. Fact is we began as Australopithecus, and gradually begat Homo ergaster, habilis, erectus, neanderthalensis, and now, the perhaps misnamed, sapiens. Each humanoid species had different talents, adapted, and grew in different ways. All but one eventually went extinct. As have 99.9% of all species. Only those that evolve survive." -Juan Enriquex
the point is i don't care what you believe, however irrational and and counterprogressive i may find it to be, as long as you keep religion away from the state---out of schools and public policy. tell you what, let's make a deal, you worship your god privately, but don't force it on the rest of us, and if you're right, when i die, i'll rot in hell for all eternity at the hands of your benevolent, perfect god being.
as is, apparently, judge john e jones iii of pa. from wired mag, his ruling in the dover school district case:
[an] objective student can reasonably infer that the [school] district's favored view is a religious one, and that the district is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion.
intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. this tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. the goal of the intelligent design movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.
those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. if so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. the breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. the students, parents, and teachers of the dover area school district deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waster of monetary and personal resources.
The possibilities of life to exist on earth, considering all the factors that have to be just right over millions of years for the theory of evolution to sustain that life today has reached where it is, is comparable to taking a rifle in hand and shooting a target 1 billion light years away and hitting it bang on. That's the accuracy required of the so called big bang theory to make this possible makes it difficult to suggest the absence of an intelligent designer.
The big problem I see here with a lot of the neighsayers is in the form of a Discovery Channel based arguement. A lot 'holes' could be answered, or at least spackled by looking at the real science texts, not the boiled down summaries. Sure there are holes and inconsistancies. Science is always changing. Also, science is a field of study, not a thing. I find it funny to read on here as though science is a being telling us stuff. Just a few things to consider, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Evolution occurs at a rate that dwarfs our life span and even our comprehension. Also, if the fossil record preserved every creature to have lived, we would be swimming in bones. Fossilization requires very precise environmental conditions and not all creatures are even very likely to be fossilized.
lasitm: No, you've got it wrong. What evolution is is an explanation to why it isn't like that. Evolution tells how a series of random events have been steered towords a certain 'end, where we are now. It is as if the bullet was radiocontrolled and it's course could be adjusted continuously during it's flight.
As for provable/unproveable, a scientific theory isn't generally proved, is is constantly proven to be wrong. And every time such a proof is presented, the theory is adjusted. So Darwinian evolution is just the best explanation we have so far. Intelligent design explains far less of what we observe, and I assume it could and has been disproven fairly easy (unless it it explains nothing, which couldn't be disproved of course).
Lastly, I really wonder why believeing in God or not has anything to do with this?? Except for the statistical correlation between ppl that believe in God and in 'intelligent design'?
cassiel
"It is as if the bullet was radiocontrolled and it's course could be adjusted continuously during it's flight. "
thats right! who is controlling it?
"Intelligent design explains far less of what we observe, and I assume it could and has been disproven fairly easy"
key word.......... assume
"As for provable/unproveable, a scientific theory isn't generally proved, is is constantly proven to be wrong. And every time such a proof is presented, the theory is adjusted."
that's right time to make changes- and or continue the discussion- ID does have answers to the ORIGIN issue.
crowbert
"I actually did read the Bible. I went to Catholic School."
that doesnt mean you read the Bible- be honest you really didnt- you may have read the catechism but the catholic church doesnt encourage reading the bible.- I have met somany people like you- had a bad experience with the catholic church- and now are just bitter about Christianity - i dont care but you are letting it cloud your viewpoint about ID
"I should point out that if you are to follow Creationism, you will also need to believe in other scientific "truths" of the Bible:
The World is Flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
There is a physical dome which covers the (flat) earth - This supports all of the stars and planets.
Spontanious generation."
what Bible are you reading? i think you are talking about viewpoints of certain religious people in history- and scientist also. The canopy thing maybe.
Lets face it e909 and a few others just dont like christians- you have given no scientific evidence to back up anything. Evolution is not unquestionable but is perceived to be so.
franklloydmike "the point is i don't care what you believe, however irrational and and counterprogressive i may find it to be, as long as you keep religion away from the state---out of schools and public policy. tell you what, let's make a deal, you worship your god privately, but don't force it on the rest of us, and if you're right, when i die, i'll rot in hell for all eternity at the hands of your benevolent, perfect god being."
"but before you go off on how great the bible is and how factual it is, don't forget that the bible has been used"
you said it the Bible has been used but that has NOTHING to doi with what it says. You are talking about an application issue and i am refering to its literary accuracy and translation. Know what you are talking about. You are talking about peoples exoperiences with things related to the use of the Bible- not the Bible.
ok as long as you keep your Humanistic religion away from me and stop ramming it down my throat and sticking it in my schools and political office- I will say anything anywhere i please and you will have to deal with it. especially if I have the majority to back me. Thats the way it works-
Every person, student, parent, politician has the right to use the system to try to bring about the world they want to live in and the world they think is right.
its NOT religion it is God and people trying their best to follow God as individuals.When they get together they make a group.
ID can be examined just like any other question using the scientific method- you use your eyes, ears, tests etc etc to look at patterns in the biological world- this is how evolution has "evolved" . No self respecting scientist would eliminate a God or intelligent designer and/or Creator in discussing the origin of species- stick to the logic and rules of science and the discussion is over ID is a scientific theory- not yet a hypothesis and should be studied further and discussed. That is the facts you dont have to like it but your emotionalresponses will not change anything.
1. Evolution is controllig it. That was the whole point! Just like a ball always hits the earth every time you drop it, even though it statistically should fall upwards every second time.
2. Assume, yes, I dont' have the time, interest or expertise to get further into that. I'm not asking you to be convinced.
3. Origin has nothing to do with evolution either. Science agrees that it cannot come up with a believealbe theory about the origin of the universe, or self-conscience (,or whatever 'life' is) at present. You have a choice of either believing in something because of faith (in which case any explanation be it Hinduist or Christian or whatever is equally motivated), or to accept not to know, or trust science to figure it out in the future. Either way it certainly has nothing to do in science class.
Finally, why do you take this discussion with us? If you want to discuss philosophy, fine, I'm all for that. But if you want to question the accepted theory of evolution, why dont' you bring it up with the science community instead of judges and schoolboards? Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues?
Scientists should run science class, and priests should run the church.
(That quote might actually be essentially the same as something someone important has said.)
"bring it up with the science community instead of judges and schoolboards? Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues?"
I dont see it as philosphy- i see it as science.- for basic reasons- The atheistic scientific community has too much at stake to allow other theories to question the validity of traditional evolution- so they refuse to discuss the science. That is why people have taken it to the school board.
besides there is no us and them-
the issue is some people think its science and others dont- any the ones who dont are pushing their will on the rest.
"Scientists should run science class, and priests should run the church"
but scientists dont, school teachers do and school boards." Not allpeople who believe in God are priests just like all people who dont beleive in God are not scientists.
"Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues? "
I trust God not leaders or ideologies and i can think for myself-
I am also a scientist by the way- phisiologist.
besides ID is not what people think it is- simply a rewording of the creationists theory-link
it is not about evidence it is simply about the interpretation based on presupositions.for example one of the evolutionists presupositions is that fossils take millions of years to develop- no proof exists for this assumption but it is allowed to skew the new evidence found-
the reason i question evolution- as many others do- is because it is trying to sell the idea that it all happened through chance and random events which is not realistic when you examine anything else- its about statistical probability- if they could prove or give reasonable evidence that it could happen in a laboratory then it might gain more credibility.
to believe evolution blindly just because some authority figure says its true is irresposible.
to think that people dont have the right to question a theory just because they are Christian, if as stated earlier that theory is evolving,and itself and needs to change, is also irresponsible.
"bring it up with the science community instead of judges and schoolboards? Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues?"
I dont see it as philosphy- i see it as science.- for basic reasons- The atheistic scientific community has too much at stake to allow other theories to question the validity of traditional evolution- so they refuse to discuss the science. That is why people have taken it to the school board.
besides i wasnt at the school board that day.
someone mentioned natutural selection is not about the strong surving but that is just semantics- if it is about adaptation and to adapt is a strength then it is about who is the stronger.
"stories, Behe notes, invariably began with cells, whose own evolutionary origins were essentially left unexplained. This was harmless enough as long as cells weren’t qualitatively more complex than the larger, more visible aspects of the eye. Yet when biochemists began to dissect the inner workings of the cell, what they found floored them. A cell is packed full of exceedingly complex structures—hundreds of microscopic machines, each performing a specific job. The “Give me a cell and I’ll give you an eye†story told by Darwinists, he says, began to seem suspect: starting with a cell was starting ninety per cent of the way to the finish line."
what this says is that Darwinist's talked often about the evolution of the eye but their discussion started at the cellular level- but in the 50s it was discovered that the cells of the eye were extremly complexed. Darwinism cant explain this level of complexity. Darwinism could explain from the cell to the eye but not any deeper.Therefore one of the ID assertions is to disprove evolution or at least parts of it- As someone mentioned previously that is the intent of continued study is to disprove itself and if you cant the theory still stands.
the inherant assumption is that questions are always welcome- that is part of the scientific method as are the implications of what we believe to be true.
If you really want to understand the ID side and stilldisagree with it the follwing book will give you half- the biological side of the argument- the other side is a mathmatical argument.
all darwinism presents is that this or that could have happened not that they did happen
that is a big distinctinction with the way people refute conflicting theories.
we are talking about possibilities here- even with darwinism- what some people are saying now is that possibility is unlikely based on scientific findings-
darwinism always ahs an answer to these other theories- but the answer is almost always well is could have been this and never it happened like this.
a problem i have with what you've offered hilldomain is that those who follow after evolutionary theory wouldn't accept darwin's knowledge and stop at finding the cell. they'd dig deeper and understand the evolution of the cells. if a next-smaller-unit was discovered, they'd dig deeper into that.
intelligent designs proponents, from what i've read, seem satisfied to get to a point where something just seems too mysterious, stop, and say 'something really smart must have made that happen.' why not keep looking? maybe there is an origin that is observable and demonstrable.
yes, something really smart did make everything happen. the universe is smart and its operation never ceases to amaze. is it necessary to identify a separate intelligence than that which makes up the universe itself?
Ok, I'm not gonna continue from here. But to be honest I am not the least impressed with you arguments, and I strongly believe that if you are going to claim that there is a conspiracy among atheist scientists, then you have to spend your years studying biology and doing research. If then you are right, you will be among the people on the cover of Nature one day.
Until then, or if you dont' think it is worth dedicating your life to (which most biologists do), leave our kids alone.
No Hilly, I did read the Bible. In fact the class was (cleverly) called "The Bible." Over the course of the year, not only did we read the whole Bible but we discussed it, how different people interpereted it (as it turns out, not everyone agrees on the proper interpretation of the Bible - who'da thunk it!) and how the Church interpreted it. So if you're going to call me a liar, I am going to have to throw down - I know you didn't read the Bible, the whole Bible, just from your response to my post:
"i think you are talking about viewpoints of certain religious people in history- and scientist also. The canopy thing maybe."
The "canopy thing" is called the firmament, and its in the specific area of the Bible you are proposing to us be so fundamental to the understanding of the universe that I'd expect you to at least know those passages:
[Gen 1:6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Hmmm, sounds like there's a solid thing in the sky seperating two bodies of water...
[Gen 1:14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Geez, apparently stars and planets seem to be hanging on this "canopy thing" and aren't really separate heavenly bodies and solar masses flung to the farthest reaches of space. Perhaps we'd better start replacing astronomy class with this intelligent design teaching as well.
Now I'm not even going to go into the Pillars supporting the earth [1 Samuel], the tree so high Daniel could see every point on the earth (impossible if you're living on a sphere or don't understand geometry). I'm just going to point out that if you don't think the Bible differes from the laws of science on all the points I mentioned in my earlier post, you would be wrong.
Here's what I find most aggravating about creationists: you say that this book you believe in is absolutely and literally true, but if it is everything in the book needs to be true. You can't pick and choose from the Bible if the Bible is the word of God. In the Bible the world is set on physical pillars, can be entirely obseved from a single point in space and has a solid dome which covers the whole earth. Now the same book which you say proves the earth is 6000 years old also "proves" these facts about the earth too. If you do not ascribe to the entirety of the Bible, then any part of the Bible may be called into question, including your creation story. This would, obviously, kinda take away from the whole "Word of God" absolutism to which you ascribe to. In for a dime, in for a dollar Hill my boy.
Now after pointing out the person who, as it turns out, didn't read the Bible, I need to mention that all of this is beside the point. Because Hill and his ilk cannot grasp the real reason creationism does not belong in science class.
Science is how things work.
God (if that's what you want to call it) is why things work.
Science, good science at least, attempts to eliminate intent as much as possible. When you hear about a scientific study about smoking sponsored by Phillip Morris, you're going to be a little suspect of it, aren't you? Why? Because they had an agenda going into it and we all know human nature. Environmental impact study by Greenpeace, war planning by neoconservatives who never served - all the same thing - injecting intent into science leads to bad science.
Hilldomain, you want to place your god's intent into science class which not only goes against evolution, but the very nature of science itself. The Bible does have its place in schools - in English, in comparative religion classes, in philosophy classes. But creationism (by whatever moniker you wish to hang on it) does not belong in science class, because by its very essence it is not science, never was science and never will be science.
Personally Hill, I find you trying to reduce god to something that can fit inside a test tube not only abhorrent, but completely counter to god's true nature.
beautifully and eloquently stated, crowbert. I have quite a few friends who are Christians and worked at a Christian camp for four summers, which by no means makes me an expert, but daily exposure to a potpouri of people of Christian faith, to which I was an adherent for a time. It also gave me a lot of time to study evangelical Christian theology and the Bible, and I by no means dislike Christians as a whole, but have many serious problems with fundamentalist Christianity. anyway, I completely agree with you there, crowbert.
my old testament/new testament classes in high school were extremely valuable to me. i have a great background in a lot of the western mythologies that become touchstones and points of reference in conversation, literature, music, etc. the bible is a series of amazing stories which evolved via word of mouth over centuries - some borrowed from other religions, some developed especially for liturgical reasons by priests of the jewish or christian religious leaders. if i didn't understand the bible i would have a more difficult time functioning in american society.
Steven Ward:"
is it necessary to identify a separate intelligence than that which makes up the universe itself? "
i am not sure what you are saying could you elaborate? i can take a guess in that you are saying what beastern mystics say in that "one is all and all is one" meaning it is a nebulous kind of force that everything is apart of an that force is intelligent. Not sure if that is what you mean.
"i have a great background in a lot of the western mythologies that become touchstones and points of reference in conversation, literature, music, etc. the bible is a series of amazing stories which evolved via word of mouth over centuries "
You call them mythologies- who told you they were myths? Why do you believe they are? Dont't even look at the Bible as a spiritual book- look at it from a purely literary standpoint- The genesis acount is not written in a mythological style at all- it is written as a historical one- down to cubits and specific measurements of the Taberbnacle. The only reason you believ its a myth is because you were told that.
The passing down by word of mouth- yes it was but it was also written- it has the MOST ORIGNAL texts of ANY anchient text(the ILLIAD is next i believe).
These are the facts. People always refer to Christians as just having a leap of faith and believing in myths - thsi is just not true. If you your belief back it is most likely not due to study- someone told you.
Genesis is a geneology from the beginning of human kind- Adam he is not beleived by the writers to be a prototype or a myth- we just cant imagine being creted in this modern day- The Bible traces Adams main line-(although not comprehensively) throughout the ages to the line of Christ. In short the Bible writes about Noah, Adam, Moses, Jesus, in the same way and they are allrefered to in the New Testament as well as real people.
now you have a few choices - you can believe the writters of the Bible were liars, or crazy, or just wrong. But you cannot believe they understood Genesis or Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus as anything but real people. I am not saying you have to believe in God but i am saying you have to believe the authors of the Bible believed what they wrote a s real.
"what does the bible have to do with science? " Nothing if you believe it is a myth- but it is not, it is historical.( yes some books are poetic, lyrical etc, but some are historic writing style).
We know that the Davinci Code is fiction - one because the author says it is and 2 because of the style of writing.
cassiel:
Since my kids go to the same school your kids do- I should have a say in what is taught in the public schools- you seem to have this us and them thing going- and again i am not sure who the "our" is. you just want to trust the scientists and not dig deeper-
the ID people are saying lets keep looking because Darwinism doesnt answer the questions well enough.- based on science and common sense.
heard a good one on discovery channel today- the synapses in our brains are 1000 times faster than our nearest primate "relatives". This means we are really smart and can be creative- one guy says its because we started eating shellfish (Maybe thats why the Japanese are so smart)- he says he found tools near the shellfish that were bothe left millions of years ago- great I can agree 1.) yes we have shells and they probably ate the stuff inside. 2.) yes they made tools. i will even give them that both were there since a long time ago. But which came first eating of shellfish or the tools? he is saying that the eating of shellfish is the CAUSE of the smartness and therefore the making of tools-he has ZERO proof of this! Maybe they saw shells couldnt open them and decided top make a tool to open it. OR 15 other possibilities. Now he is looking for an evolutionary step or a cause for one- this is the problem with deductive reasoning it can be logical but completely wrong.
evolution can be valuable if people realize what it is. It is reaklly pretty vague as to what it is. They leave every possibility open to the cause of an evolutionary step- except- an intelligent designer. It should be included- because it is logical.
why are we so much farther advanced than every living creature on Earth? maybe you dont think we are. synapses 1000 times faster and it all happened by random chance?
Talk about a leap of faith.
Crowbert: i dont think you are looking for understanding just an argument- If you tell me you are not lying i guess i have to believe you. But you dont understand the BIble at least by your comments.
You took a class and you are an expert?
I dont believe you actually read the whole text- but certainly if you did you dont remember it and so don't I thats why i have studied it for the last 20 years - were talking about 1500 pages of text!
in a class that would last 2 semesters or even a full year you pick a few passages and thats all you have time for.
"6Then God said, "Let there be an (M)expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7God made the [c]expanse, and separated (N)the waters which were below the expanse from the waters (O)which were above the expanse; and it was so."
this is the terminology a more accurate translation(NASB) will give you- Modern translation go right to the original text unlike THe KING James version you are reading, which is what you refered to as being passed down from generation to generation.
There are minor variation in the modern translations but they all give the same main points and or have a few minor literary differences which are footnoted with alternate words for better understanding.
"Hmmm, sounds like there's a solid thing in the sky seperating two bodies of water"
Hmmm no its not! It is an exapanse God called it the heavens not Heaven. here are a few parallel passages to give a fuller understanding of the Gen passage. This is what the Jews and the Christians both understand about the passage.
I am baiting you and you falling for it- that isnt going to help the real point of this thread. So i will try to stop-
you can't just pick out one word you like without looking to the whole of the BIble. I have alot of Christians friends that do the same thing. The point when you read the BIble whether a Christian or athiest, or agnostic is to undertand what the original author meant. That is interpretation. There can only be ONE real interpretation.
go figure! if you understood the difference between Observation, Interpretation, and the part where people disagree the most Application- what does it mean for us today. This 3 step process is called the Inductive Bible Study method.
here are the passages:
"5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that (A)by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was (B)formed out of water and by water, "2Peter3:5
Isaiah 40:22
"22It is He who [a]sits above the [b](A)circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like (B)grasshoppers,
Who (C)stretches out the heavens like a (D)curtain
And spreads them out like a (E)tent to dwell in. "
Jeremiah 10:12
12"It is (A)He who made the earth by His power,
Who (B)established the world by His wisdom;
And by His understanding He has (C)stretched out the heavens."
if you are stuck on the word firmament - get over it - look at the point of the text -its not a grassy knoll- in hebrew it would be ahebrew word.
Now read Gen1:14
14Then God said, "Let there be (T)lights in the (U)expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for (V)signs and for (W)seasons and for days and years;"
doesnt the NASB make more sense? same is refferred to in Ezekiel -Even though the word firm does come give us firmament- it doesnt mean ground- did you read the definition you gave me? thios is what it said in number one
1 : the vault or arch of the sky : HEAVENS
"Hmmm, sounds like there's a solid thing in the sky seperating two bodies of water" does it still sound that way?
the point is GET THE POINT of the text
I dont believe you actually read the whole text- but certainly if you did you dont remember it and so dont I thats why i have studied it for the last 20 years - were talking about 1500 pages of text!
in a class that would last 2 semesters or even afull year you pick a few passages and thats all you have time for.
yes people read through the Bible in a year but there isnt really much use in scanning like that-
"I'm just going to point out that if you don't think the Bible differes from the laws of science on all the points I mentioned in my earlier post, you would be wrong."
should i waste time and go into the next passage?
the problem is you know what people have told you ABOUT THE BIBLE but you dont know what it really says.
Lets talk about science- are you a scientist- did you study that beyond highschool i mean?
i did- i can see both sides of the coin- all i am asking is take off your Worldview blinders and take a look at the facts. Objectively.
First of all you are lumping Christians with ID people and they are not the same- the christians fund the research yes- but it is a separate issue- that is you first major mistake.
Here is your next asumption:
"you believe in is absolutely and literally true, but if it is everything in the book needs to be true."
yah- what does that mean- absolutely and literally? you have to understand that the Bible is 66 books- the book of Psalms is poetry so i wouldnt take it literally if what you mean is word by word but it is accurate and therefore true. They did the things they wrote about. yes. No legitimate reason to believe otherwise accept that you cannot conceive giants, or people living for 900 years. Do i believe the 7 days in Genesis were 7 days? I am not sure i understand the meaning of a day-I have to take into account the whole scripture and not just one part. I am waiting on that one-
as far as literally- you must look at the fact that the book is translated into English from a different languge - do you speak a different language? You have to translate the intent and cannot translate word for word otherwise you will miss the point- You refer to specific words like pillars and firmament from the KJV which we know is not an accurate translation like i said earlier. Asfar as being true- there are murders and people doing stupid things even Christians- nothing is hidden to make believers look better- they all died for their beliefs and the Bible tells the story. Yes i believe it is accurate based on original texts, and that it is literal -websters says this- (webster was a Christian)
"1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression."
so yes
"Now the same book which you say proves the earth is 6000 years old"
some Christions believe this if they do not understand that although Genesis is true it is not comprehensive. it doesnt tell everyone who begat everyone- it is to trace the messianic line. Have to know the intent.
You are so uneducated about the Bible i am wasting my time- and about what Christians really believe, and about who the ID people are . You need to do some research and start with the translation you are using of the Bible.
"Personally Hill, I find you trying to reduce god to something that can fit inside a test tube not only abhorrent, but completely counter to god's true nature"
the funny things , as you are doing now, the only reason i started talking about GOD in the first place was because others brought it up. For someone who doesnt believe you talk about Him alot.
Like i said I am ascientist- what is your authority on the issue?
I was talking about ID but since you decided to show your ignorance on Biblical matters i decided it was time for sunday school.
There are some objective evlotutionists and there are those who are not. People have their careers and fame at stake that is objective?
Again ID is in the same class as evolution- literally- thats the point - the idea of evolution without major adjustment is just ignorant-
"But creationism (by whatever moniker you wish to hang on it) does not belong in science class, because by its very essence it is not science, never was science and never will be science."
we could talk about the developement of the hand or the eye or the synapsis in the brain but then we would actually be talking about SCIENCE WHICH YOU HAVENT SAID A WORD ABOUT accept your annoying assertions of your faith. WHERE IS THE HOW YOU keep refering to.
you should keep repeating that in your head maybe someday it might come true. and maybe we came from monkeys but maybe we didnt.
you are simply stuck in your world view and cant get out- maybe you will evolve out. but maybe you won't and your kids will be saying the same stupid things to my kids as the teacher in science class talks about the myths related to evolution.
"Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in..."
are people grasshoppers? is the heaven actually a curtain? is he talking about a literal tent? Any idiot would realize he is giving an anology- if you analyze any anology it will fall apart- it is literla in that it is consistent with a main meaning. .The stars are like diamonds- what there are diamonds in the sky?
At any rate there are places people use poetic language and there might even be places where individuals assert their own personal beliefs in the Bible- say Job for instance - but that just would maybe prove that Job believed the world was flat not that that is what the Bible teaches as truth- I think it can be argued that he didnt believe that also. You would have to ask Job. Skeptics like to pull texts from places that contextually are not refering to geography at all and try to make a point-
"1 Sam. 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them"
here is the samual verse i think you are refering to. Is he refering to geography? We talk about the pillars of the law- are we refering to actual pillars? are you stupid?
Have you been reading the sceptics friends network again?" Bring some real points next time these oldones dont hold any weight.
"serious problems with fundamentalist Christianity"
doesnt everybody? I am in the middle of it all- Christians say and do stupid things but the Church doesnt discriminate- we can all be a part- just like anywhere else people have different beiefs among the same group- I have serious problems with the government and with the ACLU, and with athiests. Some of them dont think before they speak-I dont think sometimes too.
i've actually never had anyone tell me that the bible consists of mythologies, but when you look at the parallels to hindu stories, greek and roman stories, buddhist stories, muslim stories, native american stories and norse stories, it's hard not to make the connection.
my god, hilldomain... excuse me, your god. the points you make are so incredibly stupid and frustratingly hipocritical that it's difficult to know where to begin responding to your rambling mess of a pathetic defense of literalist ideology.
The only reason you believ its a myth is because you were told that.
hmm. sounds like some a billion people i know.. christians. there is no scientific evidence for just about anything in the bible. the evidence for evolution may be changing, but is conclusive, observable scientific evidence.
based on science and common sense.No legitimate reason to believe otherwise accept that you cannot conceive giants, or people living for 900 years.
yes, common sense. the people who wrote the bible often were not the ones who experienced the stories told within it, but were told the stories. still many literalists, a movement dating only to the 1920s, believe moses wrote the entire pentauch despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
First of all you are lumping Christians with ID people and they are not the same- the christians fund the research yes- but it is a separate issue- that is you first major mistake.
all christians may not be IDists, but all (the vast majority, i should say, forgot you were going to literally interpret me) IDist are literalist christians
the Church doesnt discriminate
oh so gays, sodomites, divorcees and other heathens are welcome? or are they responsible for september 11 as some of your stars would have us believe
look. the world was created by dwight eisenhower, who is all-knowing and all-seeing but unfortunately lost sight in one eye so lacks depth perception, 50 years ago and weighed 15 miligrams, growing and expanding rapidly through space, and he populated with bald men, created in his own image to combat the military-industrial complex.
look, it's historically worded and is the inspired word of eisenhower. common sense tells us it's true!
fundamentalist, literalist christians would do well to love their neighbor, feed the poor and live lives of modesty in the spirit of their alleged messiah rather than spew absolute pseudo-science bullshit and bigotry.
What I don't understand about the Intelligent Design argument is why there is such an issue with evolution. IF you believe in a designer and look at the immense complexity of the biological world, why discount that there are mechanisms and processes designed into the system in order to accomodate change - evolution and natural selection being part of this system. Whether it was designed, created, or arose out of purely physical laws and processes doesn't impact trying to understand how this incredible and wonderful world works. Why dismiss a very robust theory - evolution - that not only helps us understand biological diversity, but also predator-prey interactions, DNA, heredity, the fossil record, plate tectonics, geology, and ecology.
I read Behe's book and he brought up some interesting insights, but then in the end he wanted me to be satisfied that his examples were only evidence of a designer, and that answer didn't help me understand why the eye though too complex to evolve should show so many variations and even in some species of cave-dwelling fish be present but not functioning. He seemed to be saying if it can't be explained then it is designed, which doesn't seem scientific to me. Intelligent Design doesn't help explain or understand the natural world and that is why it doesn't have much of a hold anywhere outside of trying to call into question evolution.
If an proponents of Intelligent Design and Scientists came upon a levitating car the ID'ers would say "look it is obvious, there has to be a designer" while the Scientists would nod distractedly as they started to take apart the car to figure out how it works.
cf - don't know enough about the egyptian stories to comment, but what i do know seems consistent with my statement above: most phenomena are explained through stories of a particular characters instead of by reference to natural occurrences.
I thought we were architects here. I find your claim to be a scientist makes you strangely out of place. Perhaps the attempt to drown out the internal dissonance of your religious worldview and the basic tenants of science has clouded your though process and made you a shallow, bitter man - trolling architectural boards to vent your bent view on non-scientists as true scientists can evicerate your arguements without breaking a sweat. But then I would be making unfounded judgements based upon a glimpse at someone's writings, and that is apparently already your job.
Is english your first language? I ask because you seem to be having difficulty in not contradicting yourself, and I am wondering if its English that's tripping you up, or your need to prove correct a book which contradicts itself.
Just in case, here's a quick english tutorial:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers" - that's a simile (a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as)
"for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them" - that's a statement. There are pillars, they are made of the Earth, and the world is set upon them.
Now, if you are they type to say that a statement from God is up for interpretation (after all, what does God know about making a point!) that means those pillars can stand for whatever you want it to be. Sure the pillars could stand for law, but they could also stand for the strands of spaghetti holding up the earth. After all, since everything in the Bible is up for HillDomain's interpretation, and if Hilldomain changes his mind tomorrow, whatever he says is what it will mean when he says it. Why the very meaning of the Bible itself could evolve over time based on new data and methods of interpretation just as Hill outlined above.
Wait Hill, now you're saying that the world isn't 6000 years old? You don't know the meaning of a day as expressed in Genesis? I thought you were a professional Biblical Scientist and now you say you don't even know what is the basic tenant of creationism as opposed to evolution? I had to go back and re-read that to let it fully sink in. Then just how old is the earth then, and how can you prove that you have the authoricty to declare what is metaphor and what is literal truth?
If you are going to change the rules whenever its conveinient, then there's nothing stopping you from saying that the Bible proves anything you want. You say you have to understand the original authors interpretation in order to understand it. Well, were you there? Did you talk to all of the original authors to ask them what they meant? No!? Well then your creationism fails by the very same rule which you say dictates evolution is false - Unless it has been directly observed, it is false.
Now, I'm sure you've got some double standard which you think negates my arguement - after all, I'm no "biblical scientist" (to me that sounds like a Christian Scientist Surgeon, but I digress) but please understand my point: the beginning of Genesis sounds like poetry and not scientific instruction - and if you can't tell the difference 'tween the two, then your ability to perceive the world is, at best, rudimentary.
Is the Bible the word of God, and as an extension of his will, be infallable? If it is yes than not only must it be free of any errors, is must also be only able to be understood in one view and one view only. By not only having different translations, but also different interpretations, its absolute truth is negated. If someone - say me - reads the same book and comes to a different conclusion, then how can you say that this is an absolute and divine truth? If God wanted everyone to understand the world specifically how you would like to tell us God wants us to see it, then we would neither have free will or self-conscienceness. Considering that we have both of those would lead me to determine that God allows us to have different interpretations on the world.
Now we get back into the meat of the original issue. Interpretation by its very nature is subjective and Science, by its nature is objective - the main point in my earlier post, the point which you completely ignored. Science is an investigation into how the world works, not why your God rocks and everyone else is wrong.
People before you have interpreted the Bible to support their view of the world. People have used it to support genocide, slavery, geocentrism, bigotry and hatred. If you have a human being interpreting anything, you are going to get mistakes. That's why in science we try to remove human bias wherever it rears its ugly head. Creationism puts the bias front and center. Anything that is counter to that strict view of the world must be a lie. That's why Creationism is not the equal of Evolution - its completely incomparable. You stubbornly refuse to see that because you stubbornly refuse to see the world and all creation. In fact, Creationists are scared of the world and their view of God - living in fear that the expansion of human knowledge could somehow topple the divinity of God.
Personally, I am insulted that you say that I do not beleive in God. Again you are found to speak with a forked tongue. Never in my writing have I said I did not belaive in God - I have consistently questioned God, the world and myself and have never found any of them wanting. God did create this world in all it splendor, but he did it in a non-interventionalist way. Let me be unequivical about this - We were created through the process of evolution, the way of God. This world is an overwhelming, delicate place and we are now responsible for managing it the best way we know how. Creationism advocates the abdication of our God given free will and rational thought to a book declaring the world to be magically willed into existance by a capricious, patronizing God - a God of fickle desires and limited powers. A god who shakes the pillars of the earth when he is upset with us, causing earthquakes - a world where we are powerless to better ourselves and our world. I beleive in the God who created the laws of physics and thermal dynamics which led to plate tectonics - and science backs me up. No, you wish in your delusion to put a view of the world where all answers are proscibed to have the following answer: "Because God (and by extension, Hilly) said so." in direct competition with the view of science - the view where humans can grow and learn without limit, where if you err you may work harder and right yourself, where the entirety of all creation is open for them to explore. That is the reason your small, sad worldview belongs in the history books, not science class.
I beleive in the God who created the laws of physics and thermal dynamics which led to plate tectonics - and science backs me up.
Then your set!
….as long as what you know is true. You only get one chance to seek the truth and pick the right door (if you believe there is a door to heaven). As Jim Morrison well understood "no one gets out of here alive". The problem that arises is when you rely on your own understanding, and come up with the world's next personal religion/belief (no. 6,531,991,670+ and counting). Personally, if I believe in God, then the origin of our universe is semantics, in which the full understanding of is not a requirement (nor expected) for salvation.
A great place to discuss this issue with a bunch of pretentious and all knowing scientists & creationists...even more so than architects ;) evcforum
Running with the recent name calling - those bloodthirsty American Christian fundamentalists...
"Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain reports on a surprising new survey "
"He (Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London)blames the influence of Christian fundamentalists in America and political correctness among teachers here who, he says, feel they have to give a reasonable hearing to beliefs held by people from other cultures, particularly Muslims."
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, and so the existence of a creator will be the subject of endless debate. It is a matter of faith and personal belief. What needs to be recognized here is the coordinated attack on the scientific accumulation of knowledge that is one of mankinds greatest achievments. The proponents of intelligent design current goal is to undermine the commonly accepted methods of scientific research in an effort to advance their own beliefs. This is unacceptable. Society today is built on the achievments of science, and to attack scientific theory, is offensive and dangerous. I hope most people see these ideas of intelligent design as what they are.
from what i hear you can get two totally different readings from the same material in carbon dating is this true?
isn't science just an educated guess Bufo
shouldnt you always attack scientific theory in order to see if it holds up in the same way shouldnt you test your faith to see if it holds up
if science is able to be "undermined" shouldnt you do it to see if it holds water?
Dont get me wrong, science has mad problems, and I'll slide into a bit of mysticism now and again to keep myself entertained, but when it comes to teaching kids about reality I'll take an educated guess over unquestioned raving lunacy any day.
hehe dont know if you would like it, its a little irreverent. Its fun though!
Ive got no problem with a creation, or even a creator, in an abstract metaphoric sense. I think its important to know how and how long ago it happened though. Telling kids it all happened by magic 6000 years ago doesnt help them much.
michaelg;
how come? contesting geneses and contesting histories of the universe. in the semitic monotheistic religions, the world's becoming is testimony to God's existence, and its particulars are explicitly cited: first there was, then there was, then He/We created...so how can ye mortal fail to recognize the greatness/existence of your Maker etc etc?
if you undermine the judeo-crhisto-islamic model of becoming, it is very clear that its Author is tantamountly undermined, whether the notion of Authorship (ie other kinds of gods initiating other kinds of geneses) is still possible or not.these religions are very particular about their Author. thereofore, to expand on your analogy, the question is not only that the car has been designed by an entitiy but that it has been designed by Ford (and there is no other Car Maker but Ford Himself, halllowed be His Name) and Ford makes his cars in certain ways only. Any other car made in any other way or by any other design shall be deemed an illusion created by the Devil to test mortals' faith in Ford.
Science *does* get poked apart and put under scrutiny...that's what peer review is. If any idea is proved to be invalid by scientific consensus, then the idea is thrown out.
Yes, carbon-dating can sometimes give two different readings, but that's usually the result of contamination or improper procedure. For example, if someone is smoking on site then that could contaminate the sample and potentially give an invalid reading.
Evolution doesn't tell us the origin of life; it describes the development of life. Science hasn't given us a solid answer on where life came from, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically jump to "it happened by magic." Just because I don't know how the Large Hadron Collider works doesn't mean that it operates by magic.
Science isn't perfect, but it's the best tool that we have to discern valid ideas/methods from ones that aren't.
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." - Hippocrates
intelligent design
"but there's no doubt that sunday school teaching will leave a person clueless about this subject."
maybe, but you wont learn much about it in a science class either. can that statement be proven scientifically? When was the last time you sat in a sunday school class. did you actually go to every sunday school class in the world or at least a representable sample?
"think to "prove" the "theory" of mutation via selection, you might only have to show a change in genes of a certain measurement(not sure what that would be)."
that would just produce a result - that would say "this measurement of change in genes happened-" but now you have to leap to a conclusion which is no problem for monkeys but in a rational and logical world its bad science. But really this is the problem people take data and manipulate it to mean whatever they want- there is no connection
even if you got the results you wanted that would not prove that it is true - gene selection does not = new species- theorhetically you could have gene selection but never cross the species line. In other words their could be limits on how far selection could go. You could even have new species and also have a creation for the original origin of man. We assume that even if there is a possibility of a new species being selectively born that that process could not start anywhere on the chain and not necessarily be traced all the way back to a one celled water born creature. we havent seen incremental examples of this selective process happening-or a new species coming from another one.
point: it would take time to produce conclusive results. really the ability to examine genes on any level has only been possible since the 40's. Will examining genes give any information even relevant to the issue?
what is wrong with a clean brain? you are also brainwashed by the ACLU and/ or your parents- you have a specific world view and you think you are right- even though you cant prove it- but you accuse Christians of doing the same thing- we call that hypocrasy- or lying and that is much closer to cretanism-The Cretans were liars- they are even mentioned in the Bible.
read genesis- and try to be objective -the aim of the book is not to give a comprehensive genetic line from the first man but to trace the major connections in the hereditary line. it has its value
it would be nice to hear something other than political rhetoric. we are still avoiding the question- can we scientifically study whether the biological world was designed? i say yes. What are people affraid of?
I actually did read the Bible. I went to Catholic School. You know what they taught in all of the science classes? Evolution. You know what they didn't teach in science classes? Creationism. The reason is that all (ALL) of the evidence fits in with the theory of evolution.
The Theory (the definition you are looking for is: Webster's: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" so don't pull that "Its not a law" crap because you cannot understand that in the English language a word might have different definition depending on its context.) itself evolves based on new information, discoveries and methods. But it has yet to find something that does not in time find its way into the Theory. Every Creationist arguement either requires supposition, cites the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence "nobody was there" and a need of seperability of an integrated system.
I should point out that if you are to follow Creationism, you will also need to believe in other scientific "truths" of the Bible:
The World is Flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
There is a physical dome which covers the (flat) earth - This supports all of the stars and planets.
Spontanious generation.
I personally find the First Chapter of Genesis to be one of the most beautiful and poetic in the whole book. To look at it like a science textbook is ludicrous. Iif what you're doing is reducing it to that, I don't see how you can truely understand the grandure of his creation.
I guess the real question is, why are you afraid of reality?
let's get this silly persecuted obsession out of the way.
general sentimate in the US is "we hate Christians and Christians are stupid". If that was said about anyone else the ACLU would be allover it but since they are the instigators of the proganda war
i've read at least once, within the last ten years of a legal case in which ACLU defended standard religious rights.
general US sentiment is: "i'm spiritual. i cuss, and i'll probably wonder more about any afterlife when i'm dying." It's quite funny to read all of the overpaid "christian" leaches wailing about being persecuted one second, then the next second, claiming they are the majority. i guess they're persecuting themselves.
ask anyone where a local church is, and most will recall quite a few, even if they've only drive them. then ask them where the local ACLU is.
ask them what they know specifically about the ACLU. probably most will answer: "there were a bunch of nazis that wanted to march somewhere, and i guess the city council refused the permit, and i guess the ACLU won a case they filed, probably on grounds of freedom of speech or discrimination. otherwise, i don't know anything about the ACLU"
evolution is a scientific theory. it is able to be subjected to scientific method, having started as a hypothesis and grown into common acceptance through a history of testing and learning. because it is a tested theory, it is relevant to science classes. no credible scientists i've read have yet called it 'fact'."
true. nothing is fact. nothing is completely, absolutely reproducible.
tomorrow 2+2 may =5.617904
we won't know for sure until tomorrow comes. we can't assume tomorrow will exist. the next second maybe will not exist.
you're stumbling over terminology.
how?
how should the "big bangers" test their theory? the same way?
i think you should pick a topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
(contains at least two spelling errors, btw)
what do you call "origin? the first self-reproducing mutating "things"?
the first molecules, matter?
jerry farkwell is going to harangue physicists next?
i never noticed anyone "worshipping" biological selection or quantum physics.
never been to one, but one person (crowbert) has replied that their Catholic school taught "evolution". i don't know whether they taught it on "Sundays", but i wrote "sunday school" as as a symbolic name for religious schools. and apparently at least one teaches "evolution". from that, i'll assume that others do too. Which is reassuring. And i think it's fine if they teach it throroughly, then add that they don't believe it.
Cretans
http://www.google.com/search?q=+Cretans+%7C+Cretins
not the same. i indicated that "cretinism" was a (classic semi-apt) typing pun. the pun's origins have yet to proved. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/intro.html
i think we agree that Crete almost certainly exists
http://images.google.com/images?q=Samaria+flora+%7C+%7Eflowers+%7C+%7Eplants+%7C+%7Evegetation
"designed[/i]"? i say yes. What are people affraid of? [/i]
lack of funding.
you've spotted a better use for this
http://www.google.com/search?q=dobson+%7C+Wildmon+Falwell+%7C+robertson+Perkins+%7CSheldon+loot+%7C+money+taxed+%7C+taxes+&=
than their counter-productive whining.
science has never taught that the strongest survive, in fact..
"It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most repsonsive to change." -Charles Darwin
also... http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=evidence+of+evolution&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
intelligent design is creationism and is a set of religious beliefs, despite what some christians say, and belongs not in schools, but in churches, or at least in religion or philosophy classes. biology classes, where evolutionary theory is taught, do not seek to explain the origins of the universe, which evolutions does not address, so there is no need to discuss such matters. the catholic church and many progressive protestant churches simply believe that god provided for evolution in his creation and accept the creation story as the excellent parable it is. now, i am an atheist, but know enough about christian theology and the bible as a layperson to feel comfortable saying that christians can believe and practice whatever they want as long as they keep it out of schools and public policy, especially regarding science and health (such as intelligent design, stem cells....). while i'm pro-choice, i'll even give you guys abortion on the moral issue.
but before you go off on how great the bible is and how factual it is, don't forget that the bible has been used to defend the genoicide of native americans by purtian christian settlers (claiming that they were not accounted for in the biblical explaination of the spread of the human race across the earth), as well as many other autrocities. also, the bible is not an entirely accurate translation and the idea of literalist interpretation is only a few centuries old. furthermore, the bible is the result of a political compromise regarding which books should be included, as well as the removal of several books from the catholic bible by protestant reformists. in my view, even when i still believed in a god, the bible was not the word of god, but the words of men, sometimes great and godly men, but men.
anyway, one of my favorite quotes about this whole thing is this from a book about divisiveness in America that compares human evolution to the evolution of nations and governments...
"It does not matter if you believe in the the theory of evolution or not. Fact is we began as Australopithecus, and gradually begat Homo ergaster, habilis, erectus, neanderthalensis, and now, the perhaps misnamed, sapiens. Each humanoid species had different talents, adapted, and grew in different ways. All but one eventually went extinct. As have 99.9% of all species. Only those that evolve survive." -Juan Enriquex
the point is i don't care what you believe, however irrational and and counterprogressive i may find it to be, as long as you keep religion away from the state---out of schools and public policy. tell you what, let's make a deal, you worship your god privately, but don't force it on the rest of us, and if you're right, when i die, i'll rot in hell for all eternity at the hands of your benevolent, perfect god being.
i'm with you, flm.
as is, apparently, judge john e jones iii of pa. from wired mag, his ruling in the dover school district case:
[an] objective student can reasonably infer that the [school] district's favored view is a religious one, and that the district is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion.
intelligent design's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not intelligent design itself, should be taught in science class. this tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. the goal of the intelligent design movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design.
those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. if so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. the breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. the students, parents, and teachers of the dover area school district deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waster of monetary and personal resources.
The possibilities of life to exist on earth, considering all the factors that have to be just right over millions of years for the theory of evolution to sustain that life today has reached where it is, is comparable to taking a rifle in hand and shooting a target 1 billion light years away and hitting it bang on. That's the accuracy required of the so called big bang theory to make this possible makes it difficult to suggest the absence of an intelligent designer.
The big problem I see here with a lot of the neighsayers is in the form of a Discovery Channel based arguement. A lot 'holes' could be answered, or at least spackled by looking at the real science texts, not the boiled down summaries. Sure there are holes and inconsistancies. Science is always changing. Also, science is a field of study, not a thing. I find it funny to read on here as though science is a being telling us stuff. Just a few things to consider, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Evolution occurs at a rate that dwarfs our life span and even our comprehension. Also, if the fossil record preserved every creature to have lived, we would be swimming in bones. Fossilization requires very precise environmental conditions and not all creatures are even very likely to be fossilized.
lasitm: No, you've got it wrong. What evolution is is an explanation to why it isn't like that. Evolution tells how a series of random events have been steered towords a certain 'end, where we are now. It is as if the bullet was radiocontrolled and it's course could be adjusted continuously during it's flight.
As for provable/unproveable, a scientific theory isn't generally proved, is is constantly proven to be wrong. And every time such a proof is presented, the theory is adjusted. So Darwinian evolution is just the best explanation we have so far. Intelligent design explains far less of what we observe, and I assume it could and has been disproven fairly easy (unless it it explains nothing, which couldn't be disproved of course).
Lastly, I really wonder why believeing in God or not has anything to do with this?? Except for the statistical correlation between ppl that believe in God and in 'intelligent design'?
cassiel
"It is as if the bullet was radiocontrolled and it's course could be adjusted continuously during it's flight. "
thats right! who is controlling it?
"Intelligent design explains far less of what we observe, and I assume it could and has been disproven fairly easy"
key word.......... assume
"As for provable/unproveable, a scientific theory isn't generally proved, is is constantly proven to be wrong. And every time such a proof is presented, the theory is adjusted."
that's right time to make changes- and or continue the discussion- ID does have answers to the ORIGIN issue.
crowbert
"I actually did read the Bible. I went to Catholic School."
that doesnt mean you read the Bible- be honest you really didnt- you may have read the catechism but the catholic church doesnt encourage reading the bible.- I have met somany people like you- had a bad experience with the catholic church- and now are just bitter about Christianity - i dont care but you are letting it cloud your viewpoint about ID
"I should point out that if you are to follow Creationism, you will also need to believe in other scientific "truths" of the Bible:
The World is Flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
There is a physical dome which covers the (flat) earth - This supports all of the stars and planets.
Spontanious generation."
what Bible are you reading? i think you are talking about viewpoints of certain religious people in history- and scientist also. The canopy thing maybe.
Lets face it e909 and a few others just dont like christians- you have given no scientific evidence to back up anything. Evolution is not unquestionable but is perceived to be so.
franklloydmike "the point is i don't care what you believe, however irrational and and counterprogressive i may find it to be, as long as you keep religion away from the state---out of schools and public policy. tell you what, let's make a deal, you worship your god privately, but don't force it on the rest of us, and if you're right, when i die, i'll rot in hell for all eternity at the hands of your benevolent, perfect god being."
"but before you go off on how great the bible is and how factual it is, don't forget that the bible has been used"
you said it the Bible has been used but that has NOTHING to doi with what it says. You are talking about an application issue and i am refering to its literary accuracy and translation. Know what you are talking about. You are talking about peoples exoperiences with things related to the use of the Bible- not the Bible.
ok as long as you keep your Humanistic religion away from me and stop ramming it down my throat and sticking it in my schools and political office- I will say anything anywhere i please and you will have to deal with it. especially if I have the majority to back me. Thats the way it works-
Every person, student, parent, politician has the right to use the system to try to bring about the world they want to live in and the world they think is right.
its NOT religion it is God and people trying their best to follow God as individuals.When they get together they make a group.
ID can be examined just like any other question using the scientific method- you use your eyes, ears, tests etc etc to look at patterns in the biological world- this is how evolution has "evolved" . No self respecting scientist would eliminate a God or intelligent designer and/or Creator in discussing the origin of species- stick to the logic and rules of science and the discussion is over ID is a scientific theory- not yet a hypothesis and should be studied further and discussed. That is the facts you dont have to like it but your emotionalresponses will not change anything.
the problem is not with evolutionists- Christians can agree on most matters with them.
the problem is with atheistic evolutionists.
"primal ooze" Ridley a leading Darwinist proponent- sounds scientific.
1. Evolution is controllig it. That was the whole point! Just like a ball always hits the earth every time you drop it, even though it statistically should fall upwards every second time.
2. Assume, yes, I dont' have the time, interest or expertise to get further into that. I'm not asking you to be convinced.
3. Origin has nothing to do with evolution either. Science agrees that it cannot come up with a believealbe theory about the origin of the universe, or self-conscience (,or whatever 'life' is) at present. You have a choice of either believing in something because of faith (in which case any explanation be it Hinduist or Christian or whatever is equally motivated), or to accept not to know, or trust science to figure it out in the future. Either way it certainly has nothing to do in science class.
Finally, why do you take this discussion with us? If you want to discuss philosophy, fine, I'm all for that. But if you want to question the accepted theory of evolution, why dont' you bring it up with the science community instead of judges and schoolboards? Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues?
Scientists should run science class, and priests should run the church.
(That quote might actually be essentially the same as something someone important has said.)
"bring it up with the science community instead of judges and schoolboards? Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues?"
I dont see it as philosphy- i see it as science.- for basic reasons- The atheistic scientific community has too much at stake to allow other theories to question the validity of traditional evolution- so they refuse to discuss the science. That is why people have taken it to the school board.
besides there is no us and them-
the issue is some people think its science and others dont- any the ones who dont are pushing their will on the rest.
"Scientists should run science class, and priests should run the church"
but scientists dont, school teachers do and school boards." Not allpeople who believe in God are priests just like all people who dont beleive in God are not scientists.
"Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues? "
I trust God not leaders or ideologies and i can think for myself-
I am also a scientist by the way- phisiologist.
besides ID is not what people think it is- simply a rewording of the creationists theory-link
it is not about evidence it is simply about the interpretation based on presupositions.for example one of the evolutionists presupositions is that fossils take millions of years to develop- no proof exists for this assumption but it is allowed to skew the new evidence found-
the reason i question evolution- as many others do- is because it is trying to sell the idea that it all happened through chance and random events which is not realistic when you examine anything else- its about statistical probability- if they could prove or give reasonable evidence that it could happen in a laboratory then it might gain more credibility.
to believe evolution blindly just because some authority figure says its true is irresposible.
to think that people dont have the right to question a theory just because they are Christian, if as stated earlier that theory is evolving,and itself and needs to change, is also irresponsible.
"bring it up with the science community instead of judges and schoolboards? Neither you nor I are the experts on this, but I choose to trust scientists, you choose to trust church leaders and ideologues?"
I dont see it as philosphy- i see it as science.- for basic reasons- The atheistic scientific community has too much at stake to allow other theories to question the validity of traditional evolution- so they refuse to discuss the science. That is why people have taken it to the school board.
besides i wasnt at the school board that day.
someone mentioned natutural selection is not about the strong surving but that is just semantics- if it is about adaptation and to adapt is a strength then it is about who is the stronger.
"stories, Behe notes, invariably began with cells, whose own evolutionary origins were essentially left unexplained. This was harmless enough as long as cells weren’t qualitatively more complex than the larger, more visible aspects of the eye. Yet when biochemists began to dissect the inner workings of the cell, what they found floored them. A cell is packed full of exceedingly complex structures—hundreds of microscopic machines, each performing a specific job. The “Give me a cell and I’ll give you an eye†story told by Darwinists, he says, began to seem suspect: starting with a cell was starting ninety per cent of the way to the finish line."
what this says is that Darwinist's talked often about the evolution of the eye but their discussion started at the cellular level- but in the 50s it was discovered that the cells of the eye were extremly complexed. Darwinism cant explain this level of complexity. Darwinism could explain from the cell to the eye but not any deeper.Therefore one of the ID assertions is to disprove evolution or at least parts of it- As someone mentioned previously that is the intent of continued study is to disprove itself and if you cant the theory still stands.
the inherant assumption is that questions are always welcome- that is part of the scientific method as are the implications of what we believe to be true.
If you really want to understand the ID side and stilldisagree with it the follwing book will give you half- the biological side of the argument- the other side is a mathmatical argument.
“Darwin’s Black Box,†Behe
all darwinism presents is that this or that could have happened not that they did happen
that is a big distinctinction with the way people refute conflicting theories.
we are talking about possibilities here- even with darwinism- what some people are saying now is that possibility is unlikely based on scientific findings-
darwinism always ahs an answer to these other theories- but the answer is almost always well is could have been this and never it happened like this.
a problem i have with what you've offered hilldomain is that those who follow after evolutionary theory wouldn't accept darwin's knowledge and stop at finding the cell. they'd dig deeper and understand the evolution of the cells. if a next-smaller-unit was discovered, they'd dig deeper into that.
intelligent designs proponents, from what i've read, seem satisfied to get to a point where something just seems too mysterious, stop, and say 'something really smart must have made that happen.' why not keep looking? maybe there is an origin that is observable and demonstrable.
yes, something really smart did make everything happen. the universe is smart and its operation never ceases to amaze. is it necessary to identify a separate intelligence than that which makes up the universe itself?
Ok, I'm not gonna continue from here. But to be honest I am not the least impressed with you arguments, and I strongly believe that if you are going to claim that there is a conspiracy among atheist scientists, then you have to spend your years studying biology and doing research. If then you are right, you will be among the people on the cover of Nature one day.
Until then, or if you dont' think it is worth dedicating your life to (which most biologists do), leave our kids alone.
No Hilly, I did read the Bible. In fact the class was (cleverly) called "The Bible." Over the course of the year, not only did we read the whole Bible but we discussed it, how different people interpereted it (as it turns out, not everyone agrees on the proper interpretation of the Bible - who'da thunk it!) and how the Church interpreted it. So if you're going to call me a liar, I am going to have to throw down - I know you didn't read the Bible, the whole Bible, just from your response to my post:
"i think you are talking about viewpoints of certain religious people in history- and scientist also. The canopy thing maybe."
The "canopy thing" is called the firmament, and its in the specific area of the Bible you are proposing to us be so fundamental to the understanding of the universe that I'd expect you to at least know those passages:
[Gen 1:6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Hmmm, sounds like there's a solid thing in the sky seperating two bodies of water...
[Gen 1:14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Geez, apparently stars and planets seem to be hanging on this "canopy thing" and aren't really separate heavenly bodies and solar masses flung to the farthest reaches of space. Perhaps we'd better start replacing astronomy class with this intelligent design teaching as well.
Now I'm not even going to go into the Pillars supporting the earth [1 Samuel], the tree so high Daniel could see every point on the earth (impossible if you're living on a sphere or don't understand geometry). I'm just going to point out that if you don't think the Bible differes from the laws of science on all the points I mentioned in my earlier post, you would be wrong.
Here's what I find most aggravating about creationists: you say that this book you believe in is absolutely and literally true, but if it is everything in the book needs to be true. You can't pick and choose from the Bible if the Bible is the word of God. In the Bible the world is set on physical pillars, can be entirely obseved from a single point in space and has a solid dome which covers the whole earth. Now the same book which you say proves the earth is 6000 years old also "proves" these facts about the earth too. If you do not ascribe to the entirety of the Bible, then any part of the Bible may be called into question, including your creation story. This would, obviously, kinda take away from the whole "Word of God" absolutism to which you ascribe to. In for a dime, in for a dollar Hill my boy.
Now after pointing out the person who, as it turns out, didn't read the Bible, I need to mention that all of this is beside the point. Because Hill and his ilk cannot grasp the real reason creationism does not belong in science class.
Science is how things work.
God (if that's what you want to call it) is why things work.
Science, good science at least, attempts to eliminate intent as much as possible. When you hear about a scientific study about smoking sponsored by Phillip Morris, you're going to be a little suspect of it, aren't you? Why? Because they had an agenda going into it and we all know human nature. Environmental impact study by Greenpeace, war planning by neoconservatives who never served - all the same thing - injecting intent into science leads to bad science.
Hilldomain, you want to place your god's intent into science class which not only goes against evolution, but the very nature of science itself. The Bible does have its place in schools - in English, in comparative religion classes, in philosophy classes. But creationism (by whatever moniker you wish to hang on it) does not belong in science class, because by its very essence it is not science, never was science and never will be science.
Personally Hill, I find you trying to reduce god to something that can fit inside a test tube not only abhorrent, but completely counter to god's true nature.
beautifully and eloquently stated, crowbert. I have quite a few friends who are Christians and worked at a Christian camp for four summers, which by no means makes me an expert, but daily exposure to a potpouri of people of Christian faith, to which I was an adherent for a time. It also gave me a lot of time to study evangelical Christian theology and the Bible, and I by no means dislike Christians as a whole, but have many serious problems with fundamentalist Christianity. anyway, I completely agree with you there, crowbert.
my old testament/new testament classes in high school were extremely valuable to me. i have a great background in a lot of the western mythologies that become touchstones and points of reference in conversation, literature, music, etc. the bible is a series of amazing stories which evolved via word of mouth over centuries - some borrowed from other religions, some developed especially for liturgical reasons by priests of the jewish or christian religious leaders. if i didn't understand the bible i would have a more difficult time functioning in american society.
what does the bible have to do with science?
Steven Ward:"
is it necessary to identify a separate intelligence than that which makes up the universe itself? "
i am not sure what you are saying could you elaborate? i can take a guess in that you are saying what beastern mystics say in that "one is all and all is one" meaning it is a nebulous kind of force that everything is apart of an that force is intelligent. Not sure if that is what you mean.
"i have a great background in a lot of the western mythologies that become touchstones and points of reference in conversation, literature, music, etc. the bible is a series of amazing stories which evolved via word of mouth over centuries "
You call them mythologies- who told you they were myths? Why do you believe they are? Dont't even look at the Bible as a spiritual book- look at it from a purely literary standpoint- The genesis acount is not written in a mythological style at all- it is written as a historical one- down to cubits and specific measurements of the Taberbnacle. The only reason you believ its a myth is because you were told that.
The passing down by word of mouth- yes it was but it was also written- it has the MOST ORIGNAL texts of ANY anchient text(the ILLIAD is next i believe).
These are the facts. People always refer to Christians as just having a leap of faith and believing in myths - thsi is just not true. If you your belief back it is most likely not due to study- someone told you.
Genesis is a geneology from the beginning of human kind- Adam he is not beleived by the writers to be a prototype or a myth- we just cant imagine being creted in this modern day- The Bible traces Adams main line-(although not comprehensively) throughout the ages to the line of Christ. In short the Bible writes about Noah, Adam, Moses, Jesus, in the same way and they are allrefered to in the New Testament as well as real people.
now you have a few choices - you can believe the writters of the Bible were liars, or crazy, or just wrong. But you cannot believe they understood Genesis or Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus as anything but real people. I am not saying you have to believe in God but i am saying you have to believe the authors of the Bible believed what they wrote a s real.
"what does the bible have to do with science? " Nothing if you believe it is a myth- but it is not, it is historical.( yes some books are poetic, lyrical etc, but some are historic writing style).
We know that the Davinci Code is fiction - one because the author says it is and 2 because of the style of writing.
cassiel:
Since my kids go to the same school your kids do- I should have a say in what is taught in the public schools- you seem to have this us and them thing going- and again i am not sure who the "our" is. you just want to trust the scientists and not dig deeper-
the ID people are saying lets keep looking because Darwinism doesnt answer the questions well enough.- based on science and common sense.
heard a good one on discovery channel today- the synapses in our brains are 1000 times faster than our nearest primate "relatives". This means we are really smart and can be creative- one guy says its because we started eating shellfish (Maybe thats why the Japanese are so smart)- he says he found tools near the shellfish that were bothe left millions of years ago- great I can agree 1.) yes we have shells and they probably ate the stuff inside. 2.) yes they made tools. i will even give them that both were there since a long time ago. But which came first eating of shellfish or the tools? he is saying that the eating of shellfish is the CAUSE of the smartness and therefore the making of tools-he has ZERO proof of this! Maybe they saw shells couldnt open them and decided top make a tool to open it. OR 15 other possibilities. Now he is looking for an evolutionary step or a cause for one- this is the problem with deductive reasoning it can be logical but completely wrong.
evolution can be valuable if people realize what it is. It is reaklly pretty vague as to what it is. They leave every possibility open to the cause of an evolutionary step- except- an intelligent designer. It should be included- because it is logical.
why are we so much farther advanced than every living creature on Earth? maybe you dont think we are. synapses 1000 times faster and it all happened by random chance?
Talk about a leap of faith.
Crowbert: i dont think you are looking for understanding just an argument- If you tell me you are not lying i guess i have to believe you. But you dont understand the BIble at least by your comments.
You took a class and you are an expert?
I dont believe you actually read the whole text- but certainly if you did you dont remember it and so don't I thats why i have studied it for the last 20 years - were talking about 1500 pages of text!
in a class that would last 2 semesters or even a full year you pick a few passages and thats all you have time for.
"6Then God said, "Let there be an (M)expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7God made the [c]expanse, and separated (N)the waters which were below the expanse from the waters (O)which were above the expanse; and it was so."
this is the terminology a more accurate translation(NASB) will give you- Modern translation go right to the original text unlike THe KING James version you are reading, which is what you refered to as being passed down from generation to generation.
There are minor variation in the modern translations but they all give the same main points and or have a few minor literary differences which are footnoted with alternate words for better understanding.
"Hmmm, sounds like there's a solid thing in the sky seperating two bodies of water"
Hmmm no its not! It is an exapanse God called it the heavens not Heaven. here are a few parallel passages to give a fuller understanding of the Gen passage. This is what the Jews and the Christians both understand about the passage.
I am baiting you and you falling for it- that isnt going to help the real point of this thread. So i will try to stop-
you can't just pick out one word you like without looking to the whole of the BIble. I have alot of Christians friends that do the same thing. The point when you read the BIble whether a Christian or athiest, or agnostic is to undertand what the original author meant. That is interpretation. There can only be ONE real interpretation.
go figure! if you understood the difference between Observation, Interpretation, and the part where people disagree the most Application- what does it mean for us today. This 3 step process is called the Inductive Bible Study method.
here are the passages:
"5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that (A)by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was (B)formed out of water and by water, "2Peter3:5
Isaiah 40:22
"22It is He who [a]sits above the [b](A)circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like (B)grasshoppers,
Who (C)stretches out the heavens like a (D)curtain
And spreads them out like a (E)tent to dwell in. "
Jeremiah 10:12
12"It is (A)He who made the earth by His power,
Who (B)established the world by His wisdom;
And by His understanding He has (C)stretched out the heavens."
if you are stuck on the word firmament - get over it - look at the point of the text -its not a grassy knoll- in hebrew it would be ahebrew word.
Now read Gen1:14
14Then God said, "Let there be (T)lights in the (U)expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for (V)signs and for (W)seasons and for days and years;"
doesnt the NASB make more sense? same is refferred to in Ezekiel -Even though the word firm does come give us firmament- it doesnt mean ground- did you read the definition you gave me? thios is what it said in number one
1 : the vault or arch of the sky : HEAVENS
"Hmmm, sounds like there's a solid thing in the sky seperating two bodies of water" does it still sound that way?
the point is GET THE POINT of the text
I dont believe you actually read the whole text- but certainly if you did you dont remember it and so dont I thats why i have studied it for the last 20 years - were talking about 1500 pages of text!
in a class that would last 2 semesters or even afull year you pick a few passages and thats all you have time for.
yes people read through the Bible in a year but there isnt really much use in scanning like that-
"I'm just going to point out that if you don't think the Bible differes from the laws of science on all the points I mentioned in my earlier post, you would be wrong."
should i waste time and go into the next passage?
the problem is you know what people have told you ABOUT THE BIBLE but you dont know what it really says.
Lets talk about science- are you a scientist- did you study that beyond highschool i mean?
i did- i can see both sides of the coin- all i am asking is take off your Worldview blinders and take a look at the facts. Objectively.
First of all you are lumping Christians with ID people and they are not the same- the christians fund the research yes- but it is a separate issue- that is you first major mistake.
Here is your next asumption:
"you believe in is absolutely and literally true, but if it is everything in the book needs to be true."
yah- what does that mean- absolutely and literally? you have to understand that the Bible is 66 books- the book of Psalms is poetry so i wouldnt take it literally if what you mean is word by word but it is accurate and therefore true. They did the things they wrote about. yes. No legitimate reason to believe otherwise accept that you cannot conceive giants, or people living for 900 years. Do i believe the 7 days in Genesis were 7 days? I am not sure i understand the meaning of a day-I have to take into account the whole scripture and not just one part. I am waiting on that one-
as far as literally- you must look at the fact that the book is translated into English from a different languge - do you speak a different language? You have to translate the intent and cannot translate word for word otherwise you will miss the point- You refer to specific words like pillars and firmament from the KJV which we know is not an accurate translation like i said earlier. Asfar as being true- there are murders and people doing stupid things even Christians- nothing is hidden to make believers look better- they all died for their beliefs and the Bible tells the story. Yes i believe it is accurate based on original texts, and that it is literal -websters says this- (webster was a Christian)
"1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression."
so yes
"Now the same book which you say proves the earth is 6000 years old"
some Christions believe this if they do not understand that although Genesis is true it is not comprehensive. it doesnt tell everyone who begat everyone- it is to trace the messianic line. Have to know the intent.
You are so uneducated about the Bible i am wasting my time- and about what Christians really believe, and about who the ID people are . You need to do some research and start with the translation you are using of the Bible.
"Personally Hill, I find you trying to reduce god to something that can fit inside a test tube not only abhorrent, but completely counter to god's true nature"
the funny things , as you are doing now, the only reason i started talking about GOD in the first place was because others brought it up. For someone who doesnt believe you talk about Him alot.
Like i said I am ascientist- what is your authority on the issue?
I was talking about ID but since you decided to show your ignorance on Biblical matters i decided it was time for sunday school.
There are some objective evlotutionists and there are those who are not. People have their careers and fame at stake that is objective?
Again ID is in the same class as evolution- literally- thats the point - the idea of evolution without major adjustment is just ignorant-
"But creationism (by whatever moniker you wish to hang on it) does not belong in science class, because by its very essence it is not science, never was science and never will be science."
we could talk about the developement of the hand or the eye or the synapsis in the brain but then we would actually be talking about SCIENCE WHICH YOU HAVENT SAID A WORD ABOUT accept your annoying assertions of your faith. WHERE IS THE HOW YOU keep refering to.
you should keep repeating that in your head maybe someday it might come true. and maybe we came from monkeys but maybe we didnt.
you are simply stuck in your world view and cant get out- maybe you will evolve out. but maybe you won't and your kids will be saying the same stupid things to my kids as the teacher in science class talks about the myths related to evolution.
"Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in..."
are people grasshoppers? is the heaven actually a curtain? is he talking about a literal tent? Any idiot would realize he is giving an anology- if you analyze any anology it will fall apart- it is literla in that it is consistent with a main meaning. .The stars are like diamonds- what there are diamonds in the sky?
At any rate there are places people use poetic language and there might even be places where individuals assert their own personal beliefs in the Bible- say Job for instance - but that just would maybe prove that Job believed the world was flat not that that is what the Bible teaches as truth- I think it can be argued that he didnt believe that also. You would have to ask Job. Skeptics like to pull texts from places that contextually are not refering to geography at all and try to make a point-
"1 Sam. 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them"
here is the samual verse i think you are refering to. Is he refering to geography? We talk about the pillars of the law- are we refering to actual pillars? are you stupid?
Have you been reading the sceptics friends network again?" Bring some real points next time these oldones dont hold any weight.
"serious problems with fundamentalist Christianity"
doesnt everybody? I am in the middle of it all- Christians say and do stupid things but the Church doesnt discriminate- we can all be a part- just like anywhere else people have different beiefs among the same group- I have serious problems with the government and with the ACLU, and with athiests. Some of them dont think before they speak-I dont think sometimes too.
Im done-
"Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."
where were you? ok really i am done. Sorry to anyone i have offended- doesnt make it better-
its an important issue- and not as clear as people think
i've actually never had anyone tell me that the bible consists of mythologies, but when you look at the parallels to hindu stories, greek and roman stories, buddhist stories, muslim stories, native american stories and norse stories, it's hard not to make the connection.
my god, hilldomain... excuse me, your god. the points you make are so incredibly stupid and frustratingly hipocritical that it's difficult to know where to begin responding to your rambling mess of a pathetic defense of literalist ideology.
The only reason you believ its a myth is because you were told that.
hmm. sounds like some a billion people i know.. christians. there is no scientific evidence for just about anything in the bible. the evidence for evolution may be changing, but is conclusive, observable scientific evidence.
based on science and common sense. No legitimate reason to believe otherwise accept that you cannot conceive giants, or people living for 900 years.
yes, common sense. the people who wrote the bible often were not the ones who experienced the stories told within it, but were told the stories. still many literalists, a movement dating only to the 1920s, believe moses wrote the entire pentauch despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
First of all you are lumping Christians with ID people and they are not the same- the christians fund the research yes- but it is a separate issue- that is you first major mistake.
all christians may not be IDists, but all (the vast majority, i should say, forgot you were going to literally interpret me) IDist are literalist christians
the Church doesnt discriminate
oh so gays, sodomites, divorcees and other heathens are welcome? or are they responsible for september 11 as some of your stars would have us believe
look. the world was created by dwight eisenhower, who is all-knowing and all-seeing but unfortunately lost sight in one eye so lacks depth perception, 50 years ago and weighed 15 miligrams, growing and expanding rapidly through space, and he populated with bald men, created in his own image to combat the military-industrial complex.
look, it's historically worded and is the inspired word of eisenhower. common sense tells us it's true!
fundamentalist, literalist christians would do well to love their neighbor, feed the poor and live lives of modesty in the spirit of their alleged messiah rather than spew absolute pseudo-science bullshit and bigotry.
SW:
Where do the Egyption myths (stories) stand in relation to the bible?
What I don't understand about the Intelligent Design argument is why there is such an issue with evolution. IF you believe in a designer and look at the immense complexity of the biological world, why discount that there are mechanisms and processes designed into the system in order to accomodate change - evolution and natural selection being part of this system. Whether it was designed, created, or arose out of purely physical laws and processes doesn't impact trying to understand how this incredible and wonderful world works. Why dismiss a very robust theory - evolution - that not only helps us understand biological diversity, but also predator-prey interactions, DNA, heredity, the fossil record, plate tectonics, geology, and ecology.
I read Behe's book and he brought up some interesting insights, but then in the end he wanted me to be satisfied that his examples were only evidence of a designer, and that answer didn't help me understand why the eye though too complex to evolve should show so many variations and even in some species of cave-dwelling fish be present but not functioning. He seemed to be saying if it can't be explained then it is designed, which doesn't seem scientific to me. Intelligent Design doesn't help explain or understand the natural world and that is why it doesn't have much of a hold anywhere outside of trying to call into question evolution.
If an proponents of Intelligent Design and Scientists came upon a levitating car the ID'ers would say "look it is obvious, there has to be a designer" while the Scientists would nod distractedly as they started to take apart the car to figure out how it works.
love the last paragraph, michaelg.
cf - don't know enough about the egyptian stories to comment, but what i do know seems consistent with my statement above: most phenomena are explained through stories of a particular characters instead of by reference to natural occurrences.
Sweet Lord, Hill
I thought we were architects here. I find your claim to be a scientist makes you strangely out of place. Perhaps the attempt to drown out the internal dissonance of your religious worldview and the basic tenants of science has clouded your though process and made you a shallow, bitter man - trolling architectural boards to vent your bent view on non-scientists as true scientists can evicerate your arguements without breaking a sweat. But then I would be making unfounded judgements based upon a glimpse at someone's writings, and that is apparently already your job.
Is english your first language? I ask because you seem to be having difficulty in not contradicting yourself, and I am wondering if its English that's tripping you up, or your need to prove correct a book which contradicts itself.
Just in case, here's a quick english tutorial:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers" - that's a simile (a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as)
"for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them" - that's a statement. There are pillars, they are made of the Earth, and the world is set upon them.
Now, if you are they type to say that a statement from God is up for interpretation (after all, what does God know about making a point!) that means those pillars can stand for whatever you want it to be. Sure the pillars could stand for law, but they could also stand for the strands of spaghetti holding up the earth. After all, since everything in the Bible is up for HillDomain's interpretation, and if Hilldomain changes his mind tomorrow, whatever he says is what it will mean when he says it. Why the very meaning of the Bible itself could evolve over time based on new data and methods of interpretation just as Hill outlined above.
Wait Hill, now you're saying that the world isn't 6000 years old? You don't know the meaning of a day as expressed in Genesis? I thought you were a professional Biblical Scientist and now you say you don't even know what is the basic tenant of creationism as opposed to evolution? I had to go back and re-read that to let it fully sink in. Then just how old is the earth then, and how can you prove that you have the authoricty to declare what is metaphor and what is literal truth?
If you are going to change the rules whenever its conveinient, then there's nothing stopping you from saying that the Bible proves anything you want. You say you have to understand the original authors interpretation in order to understand it. Well, were you there? Did you talk to all of the original authors to ask them what they meant? No!? Well then your creationism fails by the very same rule which you say dictates evolution is false - Unless it has been directly observed, it is false.
Now, I'm sure you've got some double standard which you think negates my arguement - after all, I'm no "biblical scientist" (to me that sounds like a Christian Scientist Surgeon, but I digress) but please understand my point: the beginning of Genesis sounds like poetry and not scientific instruction - and if you can't tell the difference 'tween the two, then your ability to perceive the world is, at best, rudimentary.
Is the Bible the word of God, and as an extension of his will, be infallable? If it is yes than not only must it be free of any errors, is must also be only able to be understood in one view and one view only. By not only having different translations, but also different interpretations, its absolute truth is negated. If someone - say me - reads the same book and comes to a different conclusion, then how can you say that this is an absolute and divine truth? If God wanted everyone to understand the world specifically how you would like to tell us God wants us to see it, then we would neither have free will or self-conscienceness. Considering that we have both of those would lead me to determine that God allows us to have different interpretations on the world.
Now we get back into the meat of the original issue. Interpretation by its very nature is subjective and Science, by its nature is objective - the main point in my earlier post, the point which you completely ignored. Science is an investigation into how the world works, not why your God rocks and everyone else is wrong.
People before you have interpreted the Bible to support their view of the world. People have used it to support genocide, slavery, geocentrism, bigotry and hatred. If you have a human being interpreting anything, you are going to get mistakes. That's why in science we try to remove human bias wherever it rears its ugly head. Creationism puts the bias front and center. Anything that is counter to that strict view of the world must be a lie. That's why Creationism is not the equal of Evolution - its completely incomparable. You stubbornly refuse to see that because you stubbornly refuse to see the world and all creation. In fact, Creationists are scared of the world and their view of God - living in fear that the expansion of human knowledge could somehow topple the divinity of God.
Personally, I am insulted that you say that I do not beleive in God. Again you are found to speak with a forked tongue. Never in my writing have I said I did not belaive in God - I have consistently questioned God, the world and myself and have never found any of them wanting. God did create this world in all it splendor, but he did it in a non-interventionalist way. Let me be unequivical about this - We were created through the process of evolution, the way of God. This world is an overwhelming, delicate place and we are now responsible for managing it the best way we know how. Creationism advocates the abdication of our God given free will and rational thought to a book declaring the world to be magically willed into existance by a capricious, patronizing God - a God of fickle desires and limited powers. A god who shakes the pillars of the earth when he is upset with us, causing earthquakes - a world where we are powerless to better ourselves and our world. I beleive in the God who created the laws of physics and thermal dynamics which led to plate tectonics - and science backs me up. No, you wish in your delusion to put a view of the world where all answers are proscibed to have the following answer: "Because God (and by extension, Hilly) said so." in direct competition with the view of science - the view where humans can grow and learn without limit, where if you err you may work harder and right yourself, where the entirety of all creation is open for them to explore. That is the reason your small, sad worldview belongs in the history books, not science class.
Then your set!
….as long as what you know is true. You only get one chance to seek the truth and pick the right door (if you believe there is a door to heaven). As Jim Morrison well understood "no one gets out of here alive". The problem that arises is when you rely on your own understanding, and come up with the world's next personal religion/belief (no. 6,531,991,670+ and counting). Personally, if I believe in God, then the origin of our universe is semantics, in which the full understanding of is not a requirement (nor expected) for salvation.
A great place to discuss this issue with a bunch of pretentious and all knowing scientists & creationists...even more so than architects ;) evcforum
Running with the recent name calling - those bloodthirsty American Christian fundamentalists...
"Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain reports on a surprising new survey "
"He (Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London)blames the influence of Christian fundamentalists in America and political correctness among teachers here who, he says, feel they have to give a reasonable hearing to beliefs held by people from other cultures, particularly Muslims."
full article
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, and so the existence of a creator will be the subject of endless debate. It is a matter of faith and personal belief. What needs to be recognized here is the coordinated attack on the scientific accumulation of knowledge that is one of mankinds greatest achievments. The proponents of intelligent design current goal is to undermine the commonly accepted methods of scientific research in an effort to advance their own beliefs. This is unacceptable. Society today is built on the achievments of science, and to attack scientific theory, is offensive and dangerous. I hope most people see these ideas of intelligent design as what they are.
I missed this thread a while back - I though it was going to be about scripting.
Wow. I was only joking yesterday when I said we should discuss religion, too. Glad I missed this one.
Dr. Dino
similarities in evolution or evidence of a common designer?
from what i hear you can get two totally different readings from the same material in carbon dating is this true?
isn't science just an educated guess Bufo
shouldnt you always attack scientific theory in order to see if it holds up in the same way shouldnt you test your faith to see if it holds up
if science is able to be "undermined" shouldnt you do it to see if it holds water?
Has anyone read Towing Jehovah. haha brilliant.
Dont get me wrong, science has mad problems, and I'll slide into a bit of mysticism now and again to keep myself entertained, but when it comes to teaching kids about reality I'll take an educated guess over unquestioned raving lunacy any day.
is it really lunacy to believe in a Creator
in some cases it requires more faith to believe in the scientific
towing jehovah? is it good?
hehe dont know if you would like it, its a little irreverent. Its fun though!
Ive got no problem with a creation, or even a creator, in an abstract metaphoric sense. I think its important to know how and how long ago it happened though. Telling kids it all happened by magic 6000 years ago doesnt help them much.
would you say it is more irreverent than say George Carlin's "When will Jesus bring the Porkchops"?
michaelg;
how come? contesting geneses and contesting histories of the universe. in the semitic monotheistic religions, the world's becoming is testimony to God's existence, and its particulars are explicitly cited: first there was, then there was, then He/We created...so how can ye mortal fail to recognize the greatness/existence of your Maker etc etc?
if you undermine the judeo-crhisto-islamic model of becoming, it is very clear that its Author is tantamountly undermined, whether the notion of Authorship (ie other kinds of gods initiating other kinds of geneses) is still possible or not.these religions are very particular about their Author. thereofore, to expand on your analogy, the question is not only that the car has been designed by an entitiy but that it has been designed by Ford (and there is no other Car Maker but Ford Himself, halllowed be His Name) and Ford makes his cars in certain ways only. Any other car made in any other way or by any other design shall be deemed an illusion created by the Devil to test mortals' faith in Ford.
Science *does* get poked apart and put under scrutiny...that's what peer review is. If any idea is proved to be invalid by scientific consensus, then the idea is thrown out.
Yes, carbon-dating can sometimes give two different readings, but that's usually the result of contamination or improper procedure. For example, if someone is smoking on site then that could contaminate the sample and potentially give an invalid reading.
Evolution doesn't tell us the origin of life; it describes the development of life. Science hasn't given us a solid answer on where life came from, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically jump to "it happened by magic." Just because I don't know how the Large Hadron Collider works doesn't mean that it operates by magic.
Science isn't perfect, but it's the best tool that we have to discern valid ideas/methods from ones that aren't.
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." - Hippocrates
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.