Jump to content

Genesis v. Evolution


thomas pendrake
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just out of curiousity, what is significant about the Plural statement you refer to?

Since folks traditionally talk about God as a singular entity, does it not at least spark questions in your mind as to why God, in this statement, would be speaking of itself in the plural? "Let US make man". More than one entity acting as God? Now go back and re-read all the other "God said, God made, & God saw" statements and consider that all of those are plural as well. Is this a clue to the true nature of God that we do not regularly discuss? Qabalists think so.

 

Discuss.... :D

 

RMT

 

I deal with the first such example in this post, and then my follow up post will expound on the second one.

This is Part 2. Qabalah is a vast body of knowledge, and in all its vastness one can say that its sole topic is "only" that of Creation...in all its forms, but mostly in how it progresses. But I promised in this Part 2 to give another example of how Genesis 1, as a minimum, reflects a certain aspect of our modern understanding of how the universe was created. In this case we will show a connection to modern cosmology.

 

We know that, in the most read English translation of Genesis 1, that God acted over SIX days to complete the acts of Creation. While you can see that, in the translation of the original Hebrew that I presented in Part 1, that nowhere does it mention those six days, then we should wish to ask "where did that idea come from?" Once again, the study of Qabalah proposes an answer, and once again it relies upon an analysis of the VERY FIRST word of Genesis 1: Bereshit.

 

There is a very interesting book with a great deal of Qabalistic knowledge written by a friend of mine, Daniel Hale Feldman, who was lucky enough to study Qabalah from a very knowledgeable mentor. The book is titled: Qabalah: The Mystical Heritage of the Children of Abraham. And I would recommend that you get it and read it. However, you can get most of the information from the following website:

 

http://www.workofthechariot.com

 

And within one of the pages (I leave it to the reader as an adventure in reading and discovery to find it), it reveals how the mentor analyzed the word Bereshit to arrive at a potential answer to not only "why six days of Creation?" but also to make a connection to our modern understanding of cosmology with respect to the SIX SYMMETRY BREAKS:

 

The mentor in the Work of the Chariot Trust speculated further on the correlation between Torah B’reshith 1:1-4 and modern scientific cosmology. He based his exegesis upon a different breakdown of the letter sequence of the first line of Torah B’reshith. This breakdown includes an alternative rendering of the first word of the Torah as “Bara-shith” i.e. “IT created Six,” reflecting the six symmetry breaks of modern quantum physics. His detailed exegesis is presented in an appendix in Qabalah: The Mystical Heritage of the Children of Abraham.

We should also note that the Jewish Star of David contains six points and six connecting lines. This is a moniker for the six days of Creation and, by extension of the theory of the Mentor of the Work of the Chariot, also a moniker to the six symmetry breaks of modern physics understanding. Note also that the Star of David can be aligned with the two upper triangles on the Tree Of Life diagram. In essence, these two triangles are trying to represent the unification of The Creator (the upper triangle that points upward) with The Created (the middle triangle that points downward).

 

The remainder of Appendix B (which begins with the "IT created SIX" statement above) expounds on the six symmetry breaks and how they lead to the rest of Creation. I shall not copy them here, and you will have to avail yourself of the book if you are truly interested.

 

Finis. Part 2.

 

RMT

 

PS - When you find the page which I quoted above, the very next paragraph after the one I quoted has some VERY INTERESTING comments about the nature of TIME, and one view of how time can be non-linear. Go find it and check it out!

 

R

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that Godel's ontological proof has been avoided in the discussion. I again assert that atheism is a matter of faith, blind faith , in fact, since there is absolutely no other basis for it. The Universe abounds with suggestions of a god, and nothing other than faith suggests otherwise. Yes, it is easy to argue that no evidence for any given God other than revelation exists. That is why so many major "intellectuals" have been or are Deists.

I confess that I hadn’t addressed ontological arguments earlier as I had to perform some basic research (taking a wee break from my overdue thesis) as to what they precisely say, how valid its statements are, etc. (That, and frankly the tone in this thread grew so downright nasty that I was a bit turned off from wading back into the thick of it—but such is unfortunately the norm in the theism versus atheism debate, as it is after all challenging the fundamental core beliefs of both parties.)

 

Ontological arguments are quite laudable in that they are attempts to verify the existence of a Godly being through abstract reasoning and logic. Regardless, they are ultimately still not particularly compelling and are in fact quite flawed.

 

To begin, consider the classical ontological proof in its simplest form:

 

1) Definition: God is the greatest being imaginable.

 

2) Premise: It is greater to necessarily exist than to not necessarily exist.

 

3) Conclusion: God necessarily exists.

 

I.e. God is the greatest being that exists, any being that necessarily exists is clearly greater than one that doesn’t, ergo God must necessarily exist or something else that does necessarily exist could be greater—and it was stated right off the bat that God is the greatest being that exists. It is specious, circular reasoning.

 

Beyond being an entirely abstract argument with no link to the physical world with which to support it, this argument possesses a fundamental flaw that is best unveiled through a simple reductio ad absurdum counterargument: one could quite easily replace the word “God” with pretty much anything fictional that claims to the greatest what-have-you, note that it is greater to necessarily exist than to not necessarily exist, and thus “prove” that pretty much anything thus necessarily exists! As an especially absurd example: Bizarro Superman claims that he is the greatest being (“Bizarro am Number 1!”). As a being who necessarily exists is clearly greater than one who doesn’t necessarily exist, Bizarro Superman must necessarily exist—as he stated at the very start that he is the greatest being and thus no one can be greater by definition. Again, it is specious, circular reasoning.

 

It is a common flaw with many arguments based upon formal logic: one can indeed build a sound argument with a conclusion that does indeed logically follow from its axioms, but those axioms themselves must be true for the logical conclusions that follow from them to also be true. For example: All bats are cold-blooded as all bats are mammals and all mammals are cold-blooded. The logical structure is fine, but an axiom and thus the conclusion that logically follows from it are quite false.

 

Moreover, one could also craft a sound logical argument involving fanciful subjects. As another example: Logic states that Legolas is a fairy given that Legolas is an elf and all elves are fairies, but I have ultimately made a logical conclusion about the nature of a fictional character belonging to a fictional, mythological species.

 

However, it was specifically Kurt Gӧdel’s far more complicated and mathematical modal logic ontological proof that was being touted. As such, to repute the above simplest form of an ontological proof alone would be a straw man argument on my part.

 

I fully grant that the impenetrable-to-most mathematical structure of Kurt Gӧdel’s ontological proof has been mathematically verified in modern times (and it took a computer to do so). However, let’s put aside the near impenetrable modal logic notation of Gӧdel’s proof aside and examine it in as close to “plain English” as possible:

 

1) If property A is positive, and if property A entails property B, then B is positive. (It doesn’t specifically matter to this proof what these properties are, or what “positive” means so long as “positive” adheres to what follows below. In fact, we’re free to have non-existent properties entail further non-existent properties.)

 

2) If property A is positive, then the property not-A is not positive. (Who could argue against that? It essentially goes without saying.)

 

3) The property G is a positive property. (As proof of a Godlike being necessarily existing, G would be the property of being Godlike. Moreover, at that point it is said that G has all of the positive properties as it is the greatest being imaginable, after all. Again, we have stated that “God is the greatest being.")

 

4) If a property is positive, then it is positive in all possible worlds. (To extend the potential existence of a Godlike being possessing all positive properties to every corner of the multiverse, every plane of existence, etc to truly cover all of the bases imaginable—I presume.)

 

5) Necessary existence is a positive property. (Again, “it is better to exist than not-exist.”)

 

The validity of its modal logic structure aside, Kurt Gӧdel’s ontological proof regardless essentially boils down to the same argument as above with a few additional steps and provisions that ultimately change nothing: God is declared to be the greatest being imaginable (this time in all possible worlds and possessing all positive properties—which naturally follows from being the greatest), it is better to necessarily exist than to not necessarily exist, and thus God must necessarily exist otherwise something else that exists could be greater—defying our baseless definition of a Godlike being. Like any proof, Gӧdel’s ontological proof holds true if and only if its axioms are indeed true—and I and other atheists are simply as-of-yet not convinced that those axioms are indeed true.

 

Moreover, even if we are to accept Kurt Gӧdel’s axioms and thus his proof: it only proves the necessary existence of a Godlike being. Having that Godlike being be Yahweh is thus far no more or less valid than having it be Odin, Zeus, or some deity as-of-yet unimagined and unnamed by man. Indeed, to state that it is Yahweh would be quite the leap of faith.

 

Furthermore, as a tangent: I’m also fairly skeptical of the claims that observation is some key, underlying principle of physics and that the universe must have some observing consciousness for it to even exist. (It does seem that such an underlying principle of physics would have been mentioned repeatedly during my academic career in the applied sciences.) However, I’m admittedly as-of-yet unfamiliar with Dr. Wheeler’s lecture beyond that vague synopsis provided thus far and as such cannot rightfully criticize it any further at this time.

 

Ultimately, I highly doubt that there any arguments that could be presented within this thread that could convince an atheist of the existence any Godlike being let alone that the said being would be Yahweh rather than Odin, Zeus, or what-have-you: not Pascal’s “I better believe just case the threat of Hell is indeed real” Wager, the notion that smarter scientists and intellectuals than us are convinced theists (as there are also plenty of other scientists and intellectuals also smarter than us who are convinced atheists or at least agnostics as well—as previously noted in the 15th post of this thread), not the even-if-not-taken-literally mythology of one-of-out-many cultures nor the poetry of its ancient tongue nor the rather forced analogies and coincidences between it and modern science, not analogies replacing the creator of man with extra-terrestrials, not the difficulties a childlike mind may have describing metamorphosis, and not a structurally sound version of the ontological argument that’s regardless still based upon unproven axioms.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Babr_n4w In light of a lack of such evidence, the blind faith that is indeed ultimately required for theism when the aforementioned arguments are boiled down, and moreover the clear flaws and man-made nature of every proposed religion thus far: it seems more likely to atheists that there is no godlike being. That is the essential basis of atheism, and if critics wish to characterize that as stubborn blind faith on par with a creationist’s adherence or as an excessively argumentative condescending arrogance then there’s little that can be done to convince them of otherwise. It is equally unlikely that any arguments could be presented within this thread to conversely convince a theist of the nonexistence of a Godlike being. Ultimately, we may just have to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

It does seem that we at least agree that any religion that stands counter to- and vehemently opposes- clearly demonstrable and verified modern science is clearly “bad religion,” and there is indeed a conflict between proponents of “bad religion” and science (specific examples having been provided in my last post in this thread). As for “bad science” being that which does not permit the existence of a godlike being, I would say that the existence of a Godlike being is totally irrelevant to the bulk of science and moreover proper science should develop irrespective of the scientist’s biases—including religious beliefs and the lack thereof. The "bad science" of a proper scientific disproof of a Godlike being, or a fundamental scientific theorem that totally discounts the very remote possibility of a Godlike being, is about as likely as the precise opposite—after all, it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) If property A is positive, and if property A entails property B, then B is positive. (It doesn’t specifically matter to this proof what these properties are, or what “positive” means so long as “positive” adheres to what follows below. In fact, we’re free to have non-existent properties entail further non-existent properties.)2) If property A is positive, then the property not-A is not positive. (Who could argue against that? It essentially goes without saying.)

Although your post is exquisitely verbose, your logical arguments are invalid. Your tautology is flawed. I'd show you why, but that would take all the fun out of it. Make it a learning experience. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that I explicitly stated that Godel's proof and Dr Wheeler's statement about God as the observer were basically Deist. Dr. Wheeler was, in fact , a Unitarian/Universalist. And Dr. Wheeler's views are easily verified, as he is one of the most influential Physicists of the 20th century, and probably the most important cosmologist.

 

I wonder if aboleth_lich took any physics classes, or just slept through any parts relating to quantum mechanics. Here kitty, kitty, Schrodinger's kitty. The rationalist view, there is no god, therefore there is no god, is a prime example of why rationalism is totally invalid for any logical argument. Go back to Gallileo's observations about the heliocentric solar system and the tower of Pisa experiment (which is the eventual basis for the general theory of relativity) , stir in Relativity and quantum mechanics, and we have sound rejection of rationalism. And atheism is thoroughly rationalist, period.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was indeed something mistaken about the logical arguments and/or tautology within my examination of Kurt Gӧdel’s ontological proof, either one of you could have proceeded to briefly outline what those mistakes were and further the conversation as such (even though that would have apparently "taken the fun out of it"). Instead, both of you opted to be quite needlessly, childishly condescending--which is exceedingly hypocritical given your recent complaints about Nicolas being condescending towards you in his posts.

 

Since it has been quite rudely wondered aloud whether or not I took any physics classes or merely slept though any parts relating to quantum mechanics, I shall clarify the matter: I completed numerous physics classes throughout my B.Sc. and M.Sc. in electrical engineering and my ongoing Ph.D. in engineering science. I moreover performed quite well in all of them, maintaining an A level GPA. (I've furthermore guest lectured for a course on semiconductor device physics on multiple occasions throughout my ongoing Ph.D.) At no point during these courses was the observing consciousness of the universe ever discussed, which is surprising given that such is apparently a fundamental underlying principle of physics. Would you have made the same snide comment about Dr. Lawrence Krauss, Dr. Stephen Hawking, or Dr. Carl Sagan as world-renowned physicists who are (or were in the late, great Carl Sagan's case) also vocal atheists? Does their rationalism imply that they clearly also slept through their physics classes?

 

It's a bit of a shame. A serious, mature conversation of this topic could have been rather interesting (a welcome occasional distraction from furthering my thesis at least), but as it is I have little interest in participating further if this is the immature level of "discourse" that I can expect from this thread. Good day gentlemen, I leave you to being needlessly rude and condescending to those who disagree with you whilst simultaneously and hypocritically complaining about how exceedingly rude and condescending the people who disagree with you are.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was indeed something mistaken about the logical arguments and/or tautology within my examination of Kurt Gӧdels ontological proof, either one of you could have proceeded to briefly outline what those mistakes were and further the conversation as such (even though that would have apparently "taken the fun out of it").

You seemed so sure of your logical presentations, I naturally felt that you would want to reexamine them and correct any possible errors. I find learning enjoyable (fun) so I didn't want to "take the fun out of it" for you.

 

Instead, both of you opted to be quite needlessly, childishly condescending--which is exceedingly hypocritical given your recent complaints about Nicolas being condescending towards you in his posts.

We all know "Sheldon" has a problem with sarcasm, could I have a problem with condescension?

 

"Although your post is exquisitely verbose, your logical arguments are invalid. Your tautology is flawed. I'd show you why, but that would take all the fun out of it. Make it a learning experience."

 

Is this somehow condescending? I don't see where I "placed" myself "above" you.

 

Do you mean, "exquisitely verbose"? Well, it's just my opinion. Is it rude? Well, maybe some might see it as such. I have been called rude before. Ok, I'll concede to "rude".

 

Good day gentlemen, I leave you to being needlessly rude and condescending to those who disagree with you whilst simultaneously and hypocritically complaining about how exceedingly rude and condescending the people who disagree with you are.

I don't think I complained. I just pointed it out. It happens in discussions like these. I just roll with it. Have I submitted posts that may be considered rude, condescending, mean, or in any other offensive manner? Yea, some definitely are, some are considered that way by the subject in or of the post. You should see some of the posts I wrote just to vent and deleted without ever posting.

 

I tend to call things as I see them and be as truthful as my knowledge and understanding will allow.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since folks traditionally talk about God as a singular entity, does it not at least spark questions in your mind as to why God, in this statement, would be speaking of itself in the plural? "Let US make man". More than one entity acting as God? Now go back and re-read all the other "God said, God made, & God saw" statements and consider that all of those are plural as well. Is this a clue to the true nature of God that we do not regularly discuss? Qabalists think so.Discuss.... :D

 

RMT

My speculative thoughts on the meaning of that particular verse are as follows:

 

When god says let "us" make man, god is making an annoucement to extra-terrestrials. What I mean by extra-terrestrials is "not-of-this-earth" or terrestrial planet (whatever the angelic beings maybe). If I'm correct in the next verse, no-where is it implied that "they" created man, but rather "god" created man. So basically, I understand that verse to be a kind of one way dialogue between god and others, and the actual creation (mentioned a little later in the next verse) was undertaken by the singular entity, referred to as god.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, aboleth_lich, your command of logic clearly surpasses that of Kurt Godel, I congratulate you. And, again, I am astounded that a person with the education you claim could have missed the entire discussion which usually dominates any class about quantum mechanics regarding the Copenhagen interpretation . I notice that the mention of Schrodinger's cat went unmentioned. Get over it, Rationalism began it's fall with Gallileo, and Kurt Godel delivered the coup de grace. And Einstein clearly disdained it. All of his work was totally empiricist.

 

Your statement about Dr. Carl Sagan reminds me of an article which appeared in the William and Mary newspaper about an interview of Dr. Rolf Winter after he was appointed Chairman of the Physics Department. It purported that he was an atheist. He wrote a brief letter to the paper (Which the English Department declared as one of the best letters ever written in the English language.), in which he basically said that nothing in the article was in the interview, and nothing from the interview was in the article. I knew from class and personal discussions with Dr. Winter that he was absolutely not an atheist, and that he felt that the Copenhagen interpretation, or quantum mechanics in particular, demands a god to observe the universe. Dr Sagan has been widely quoted as NOT being an atheist, and even regarding atheism as being "stupid". He specifically said that he was agnostic as opposed to being an atheist. Perhaps you may wish to research his comments, and consider whether you are agnostic, or so absolutely brilliant and full of special knowledge that you can KNOW as a fact that there is no god.

 

My speculative thoughts on the meaning of that particular verse are as follows:When god says let "us" make man, god is making an annoucement to extra-terrestrials. What I mean by extra-terrestrials is "not-of-this-earth" or terrestrial planet (whatever the angelic beings maybe). If I'm correct in the next verse, no-where is it implied that "they" created man, but rather "god" created man. So basically, I understand that verse to be a kind of one way dialogue between god and others, and the actual creation (mentioned a little later in the next verse) was undertaken by the singular entity, referred to as god.

Perhaps He was speaking in the "pluralis majestatis". If mere human kings, and a lot of other people with inflated egos, can use the "royal we", certainly God can.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aboleth and Tom,

 

For Christ's sake. The two of you have your PhD's which means that you've both been required to teach physics and/or engineering. Stop quibbling over trivialities and look up at the top of the page for the topic of this thread.

 

We have victims of the public education system debating whether the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun and you two are debating rationalism and name dropping from your CV's while these people wander through the Dark Ages, fat, dumb and illiterate. Wake up, toss your egos in the dust bin and take a minute to teach. And I mean teach the physics of orbital mechanics - not freshman pseudo-philosophy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning!

 

Wow, what a productive weekend for everybody here!

 

Anyway, lets get to it. Out of all the quoting of quoted quotations, I find the next one to be the one worth mentioned, since this thread has become a bit clogged, visually speaking.

 

I stated, I expected it. If it has happened before, has a history of occurring, expecting it to happen again and stating so, is not ad hominem.

Oh yeah it is. Specially because labeling me as this or that, had nothing to do with the original argument. We steered away from it because we couldn't kill it in the first few posts, which could've been easily done. Instead, we lost time establishing I'm the atheist that lacks all sort of skills to understand what a christian has to say about his faith.

 

First, I have never seen a group of Christians vehemently attack and ridicule a group of atheists, but I have witnessed, first hand, a group of atheists do just that to a group of Christians. Have you?

Heck yeah I have! Myself and basically all atheist I know. But see, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original question. Bringing this up and putting me in the group of people that has attacked you before, has exactly zero relevance to both sides of the argument.

 

No, I suppose, if we exclude these, you didn't.

I didn't ask you to prove to me your belief in Jesus, the Bible or God. I'll repeat, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant for what was being questioned here. In all of those quotes from me that you posted, I was asking for an explanation of how you came to the original conclusion. I just wanted to understand what you were saying. Not questioning your beliefs.

 

Yep. That is what I have been trying to say.

Well, that was disappointing.

 

Sorry Nicolas, but if you are going to dispute the claims of Gpa and/or Thomas Pendrake, then you are all going to have to go back to the original Hebrew.

Well thank you, that's exactly what I've been trying to say! The Bible as we know it, is nowhere near the definition of a reliable material when it comes to match it against what we already know of the world. You had to go through all that trouble of translation, multiple interpretations, aligning verses with a drawing of a "Qabalistic Tree of Life" just to make it "parallel the process of evolution in a general sense".

 

 

Good job by the way. I never heard of the existence of Sefer Yetzirah and everything else you posted. Learned something new today :thumbsup:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had to go through all that trouble of translation' date=' multiple interpretations, aligning verses with a drawing of a "Qabalistic Tree of Life" just to make it "[b']parallel the process of evolution in a general sense".[/b]

You are ignoring, of course, the very real probability that the original organization of the 32 statements of Genesis 1 were actually purposefully aligned with the Tree Of Life (something which is discussed in Genesis 2, BTW) to convey some knowledge about evolution (i.e. Creation). Because, you see, writing something down is actually about conveying knowledge. Now, you seem to have taken the position that Genesis 1 is NOT conveying knowledge about evolution (i.e. Creation). Yet, I have shown you that clearly, it does, when you avail yourself back to the basics of the original Hebrew letters/language.

 

And in the above, you are selecting the easier of the two probabilities to dismiss. Namely, that someone took the words of Genesis 1 after the fact and "forcibly" aligned them to the Tree Of Life. Would you now like to address the more difficult to dismiss probability that Genesis 1 was purposefully structured in this manner to actually reveal something about the Tree Of Life (which is, as I have shown, a de facto architectural model of the human organism), and therefore evolution (i.e. Creation)?

 

BTW,

 

I have formally requested that Cosmo break out the Genesis v. Evolution discussion into a separate thread, as per suggestion from Gpa, starting with post #89 in this thread, which is where Thomas Pendrake first brings up Genesis. I think it is appropriate to separate that discussion from the "earth is the center of universal rotation" discussion.

 

RMT

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up guys! I've branched this discussion off into its own thread so the original one can stay alive.

 

I appreciate everyone keeping it civil - Debates mixing science and religion in most capacities often don't end well, so thank you everyone for helping me maintain my sanity ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the question of the principle of evolution and Genesis (as well as the other creation accounts in the Bible) is interesting, it misses the more important question of Rationalism vs. Empiricism in modern science, which is the core question in the geocentric vs. heliocentric discussion. I originally brought up the topic in response to the anti-religion remarks based on one narrow interpretation of one of the many creation myths in the Bible (which is only one, albeit the most widely used, holy text). As a Christian, I point out that a major tenet of the Christian faith is that the "Jewish myths and fables" are not the basis of Christianity. Indeed, many early Biblical scholars rejected this portion of the scriptures. I have long argued that the entire religion vs. science debate is ultimately based on ignorance of both topics. I am not alone , by any means, in that argument.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you now like to address the more difficult to dismiss probability that Genesis 1 was purposefully structured in this manner to actually reveal something about the Tree Of Life (which is, as I have shown, a de facto architectural model of the human organism), and therefore evolution (i.e. Creation)?RMT

I can't do that! Mainly because I had no clue such a thing existed. Also, I wouldn't try to, since I do agree with you when you say:

 

Now' date=' you seem to have taken the position that Genesis 1 is NOT conveying knowledge about evolution (i.e. Creation). Yet, I have shown you that clearly, it does, [b']when[/b] you avail yourself back to the basics of the original Hebrew letters/language

Which is exactly what I've been trying to say since the beginning. The Bible, as is, doesn't comply with reality. Well, at least when you compare Genesis with evolution.

 

Which is a very different argument than "Ignore what's written in Genesis in your King James version and go straight back to its original language and look at it through the Qabalistic "Tree of life". Only then it will match evolution." And it does, as you have shown!

 

And in the above, you are selecting the easier of the two probabilities to dismiss. Namely, that someone took the words of Genesis 1 after the fact and "forcibly" aligned them to the Tree Of Life.

Didn't me to do that though. I understand that you have your reasons to believe that the tree of life came first, and that's fine. I can accept that.

 

But, like I said, the original thread was more like this: "The Bible by itself doesn't match evolutionary history." I even quoted the text from the King James version and pointed out exactly what and where it's wrong. It's written there. In the Bible. Whales came before land mammals. This statement is wrong.

 

Is it not?

 

That is the point I've been trying to make.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point I've been trying to make.

Let me see if I can probe some more to pin down exactly what you are claiming, or not claiming, as the case may be. Allow me to take this, your unmodified statement:

 

The Bible, as is, doesn't comply with reality. Well, at least when you compare Genesis with evolution.

and modify it a bit to see if you agree with the modifications, before we proceed with a further discussion:

 

The Bible' date=' as is, [b']in the English translation of King James Version,[/b] doesn't comply with reality. Well, at least when you compare chapters other than Genesis 1 with evolution.

I added the parts in bold underline. To help me understand exactly what you are claiming, tell me if you agree or disagree with my modifications. If that clearly represents your statement, then I will agree. If your claim goes beyond that, we potentially have more to discuss.

 

RMT

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that in the theory of evolution it follows closely to the account in Genesis. The original creates in Genesis are created in the sea, and then evenutally they appear on land and then humans appear last. The 7 days account in the Bibles does not mean 7 24 hour days, but 7 of God's days. The Bible specifies that God days are a lot longer then human days.

 

The Bible's Genesis myth originates from the Babylonians and appears in other easter religions. So technically it is not Christian/Jewish but an almost universal myth. It is similar to the great flood myths.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you RainmanTime and Thank you Cosmo. Fine job.

 

Ok, are we ready to play?

 

Let's review.

 

1st. Thomas pendrake made an innocent enough comment;

 

There are multiple creation myths (not a bad word' date=' by the way) in the Bible, read the one in the Gospel of John. The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory. For a mature understanding of the nature of myth, read Hamlet's Mill.[/quote']2nd. aboleth_lich attacked Christians and anyone else that may believe in creation, even in some oblique way. He immediately labeled religion as "bad religion"; ( "Parts" of ALL religions are incompatible with "parts" of science)

 

When specific religious myths and beliefs are incompatible with and are disproven by modern hard science, as per the above examples: the bad religion label most certainly applies.

and goes on to describe what bad science is;

 

However, there is indeed "science" that can be rightfully labelled as "bad science." Junk "science" that is deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias, be it supposedly verifying creation myths as above, disproving the man-made contribution to climate change, etc, would indeed deserve the "bad science" label.

Interesting choice of words; "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias".

 

That's the same perception, some actual real scientists, as opposed to "our largely ignorant ancestors?", see when they look at the "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias" DATA ,used as proof of AGW/ACC but, that's another argument.

 

3rd. Thomas pendrake presented "Kurt Godel's ontological proof."

 

4th. Nicolas made what could be considered a "smart ass" comment. Nicolas said it was irony in his post 15. Let the reader decide.

 

The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory.

lol, you wish.

 

5th. While replying to a reference by Milo.X. about weather;

 

I asked Nicolas, an acknowledged atheist;

 

Have you read Genesis? Considering the level (what we believe it to be anyway) of scientific understanding at the time, it follows the evolutionary timeline quite well.

6th. Thomas pendrake acknowledged my comment;

 

Thank you, obviously you have also read Genesis. There are, of course, many people who have for some reason decided that only one particular way of interpreting "Jewish Myths and Fables" is acceptable, but that is precisely what both St. Peter and Saint Paul warned against.

7th. Nicolas responded to my query; "Have you read Genesis?"

 

I sure did sir!

 

Here, let me quote it:

He quotes passages (in part) from Genesis chapter 1:11-24. Then, IMO, in a condescending manner, presented some of the standard atheist talking points for discussions involving religious belief. For brevity, I will only quote his closing statements.

 

If "d" is what relates the bible to darwinism, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. Specially if you read the whole thing from the start.

 

I would look at the Scriptures as what it really is: the writings of bronze age, middle eastern tribesmen and their view of the world based on the technology they had access to. We can't rely on such a thing.

I suppose here, I could give a lesson on grammar, since I received one on scientific theory but, I doubt it's necessary. Perhaps he sees his mistake. I wonder, what are your qualifications to make the determination of "what it really is"?

 

I'll be referring to these a little later.

 

8th. I posted, the first 10 passages from Genesis he left out so I could point out that the "light" he insisted must come before plants, came before plants.

 

a. Plants were made before the sun - How's that consistent with anything? Without the sun to drive their photosynthetic processes, there's no plants... but we all knew that.

(Let me take a moment for an apparently needed biology lesson. The "first land plants" did not use "photosynthesis". If you want more in depth information than that, go get a more in depth education in biology.)

 

It was created on the first day. On the fourth day, when you claim it was created, it was given a designation.

 

(RainmanTime has already pointed this out with evidence,)

 

9th. Nicolas delved into semantics.

 

10th. I tried to explain my position. Tried to use a little sarcasm, which used an improper allusion, on which I was called out and given a lecture on scientific theory. Tried to use humor (unsuccessfully it would seem.) Pointed out that the Bible can not be taken in a literal form because compared to It's initial writhing, it is now out of context and has intentional misinterpretations brought about by both Church and Kings.

 

11th. Nicolas chastised me for not presenting my reasoning, evidence, proof, whatever, while dismissing the reasoning I "had" offered. This is also where I received a lecture on "learning something new today"... even though I understood it 30 years before he was born but, whatever. I didn't point out that he stated Boyle's Law incorrectly.

 

A little more semantics and a closing statement indicating that pretty much, nothing I say is acceptable proof...to him.

 

What the writers of Genesis got right about "creation" is the same anyone in their time would get: nothing. There's nothing that indicates that "some One" helped them, since they wrote exactly what we can expect of those tribesman to have written. There's nothing in there that jumps out as being timeless.

In the case there is and I missed it' date=' please do quote it here[/quote']It seems RainmanTime has but....

 

12th. I defended my position on some wishing evolution could be a law;

 

"I argue that the most irritating term in evolution is the use of the phrase "theory of evolution", instead of "law of evolution". Why do biologists and paleontologists continue to paint a huge, flashing target on their profession by using the term "theory of evolution", i.e., inviting criticism by allowing creationist and anti-science opponents to focus on the word "theory"? There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, "law of evolution", which, etymologically speaking, would stop many (not all) arguments dead in their tracks."

 

I usually cite sources but, this time I won't. Google it and look it up for yourselves. There is some contradictory information in there for you, Nicolas, but I imagine you will somehow discount it.

 

I pointed out the absurdity of demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible by demonstrating Darwin's ideas could not be taken literally, since we had new evidence that he was "wrong" on several of his observations. If you want "proof of that", go to college and study it.

 

13th. Nicolas defended Dawkins, unsuccessfully, IMO. Admitted to confusion on the subject at hand, which is understandable. Nicolas indicated that my opinion on Genesis was...

 

 

I was only pointing out that there is a reasonable similarity between the timeline of evolution and Genesis, NOT EXACT... SIMILAR, which I still maintain

You keep saying that, but never actually point it out. What is this reasonable similarity? Really, what is it?

 

Is it the fact that they divided the creation in seven steps? The fact that they "figured out" everything happened step-by-step and not one single event? Is this the similarity to evolution? I can see this making sense. It does have the faintest connection with evolution, if you really force it. This single phrase could have easily made the case for you before and spared you from that lecture. :D

 

This is it right? This is actually it! I think just developed a way to debate myself. o_O

 

...Unacceptable.

 

14th. I explained "Why" he was confused and would not understand it no matter how I explained it. Reaffirmed my position ,creation accounts were NOT EXACT".

 

15th.Thomas pendrake expressed his amazement that this was so hard to understand and pointed out how "he" had never intended it was a literal description.

 

16th. I pointed out that I had not presented certain scriptures as proof, but that Nicolas had already done so, I could only have been redundant and he would only restate the disagreement he already had with the Biblical accounts.

 

17th. Nicolas chose semantics as a way to claim I had denigrated "him" along with ALL atheists.

 

18th. I responded semantically to his points as well and pointed out his misconceptions.

 

19th. Finally, RainmanTime entered the conversation with his, Part 1, of well founded information. Information I had suggested earlier, but through lack of knowledge on the subject, was unable to inject.

 

20th. Thomas pendrake pointed out that we had still not entered into consideration of the ontological proof by Godel.

 

(I admit I can't because I'm not that familiar with it.)

 

21st. kimberlyd asked about the weather.

 

22nd Milo.X. asked for clarification on part of RainmanTime's information.

 

23rd. RainmanTime answered Milo.X. and offered Part 2 of his information.

 

24th. I thanked RainmanTime.

 

25th. aboleth_lich engaged in ontological discussion on the subject.

 

26th. I stated I found aboleth_lich's post to be verbose. Well, It is. I stated that I felt his logic was invalid and suggested, as an exercise in learning, he find it himself. It is possible "I" am incorrect, but I can't see his logic as it's worded. There is someone here that might be more qualified to decide that.

 

27th. Thomas pendrake again discussed Godel's proof and wondered about aboleth_lich's understanding of physics.

 

28th. aboleth_lich wondered why I didn't just tell him what his mistake might be. Pointed out that he felt Thomas pendrake and I were "mean" (I deduced that from the original five adjectives). Defended his education and finished with something along the line of, he didn't like how we played so he was going home.

 

29th. I replied to his criticism of my behavior by pointing out "Sheldon" and I were apparently similar in our inability to properly use sarcasm or be aware when we are being condescending toward someone. Kinda like maybe the lines just above these.

 

30th. Milo.X. continued his discussion with RainmanTime on the "plurality" of God.

 

31st. thomas pendrake "complimented" aboleth_lich on his education, but still wondered how he missed some important facts. He discussed "notable" scientists that he knew or believed were NOT atheists, and offered a suggestion to Milo.X. on the plurality question.

 

32nd. Darby admonished aboleth_lich and thomas pendrake for lowering themselves to engage in trivial arguments when "some" still wondered about the Earth being at the center of the solar system.

 

(I can't help but like Darby. He's "to the point". I have been corrected by him and I respect his opinions.)

 

33rd. Nicolas woke up and began by indicating he still does not understand ad hominem and apparently, does not recognize the grammatical mistake I referred to earlier, which I suggested he might figure out on his own. Although, he may be correct... in Brazil. He says he has seen a group of Christians surround a group of atheists and vehemently attack and denigrate them for their "non-belief". Eh.. maybe. There are idiots on both sides. He includes himself as having been attacked. I wonder if he considers this, one of those times?

 

He makes comparisons where no prior mention exists. He tries to slide around the information RainmanTime has presented even though the information presented by RainmanTime, " translation, multiple interpretations, aligning verses" is exactly what is required to understand this argument. We'll get back to this post.*

 

34th. RainmanTime responds to Nicolas' "dodge" with more valid understanding of the "original" text.

 

35th. Cosmo splits this discussion off from the "wrong" thread we took off track. I apologize to Milo.X.

 

36th. There are a few more posts, but following this review, I intend to start another new direction. Maybe tomorrow.

 

*Back to Nicolas' post

 

Good morning!Wow, what a productive weekend for everybody here!

 

Anyway, lets get to it. Out of all the quoting of quoted quotations, I find the next one to be the one worth mentioned, since this thread has become a bit clogged, visually speaking.

 

I stated, I expected it. If it has happened before, has a history of occurring, expecting it to happen again and stating so, is not ad hominem.

Oh yeah it is. Specially because labeling me as this or that, had nothing to do with the original argument. We steered away from it because we couldn't kill it in the first few posts, which could've been easily done. Instead, we lost time establishing I'm the atheist that lacks all sort of skills to understand what a christian has to say about his faith.

 

"You" labeled yourself an atheist. I commented on what I have seen atheists do on numerous occasions. If it doesn't "fit you" why worry about it?

 

First' date=' I have never seen a group of Christians vehemently attack and ridicule a group of atheists, but I have witnessed, first hand, a group of atheists do just that to a group of Christians. Have you?[/quote']Heck yeah I have! Myself and basically all atheist I know. But see, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original question. Bringing this up and putting me in the group of people that has attacked you before, has exactly zero relevance to both sides of the argument.

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;

 

"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."

 

No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

 

No, I suppose, if we exclude these, you didn't.

I didn't ask you to prove to me your belief in Jesus, the Bible or God. I'll repeat, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant for what was being questioned here. In all of those quotes from me that you posted, I was asking for an explanation of how you came to the original conclusion. I just wanted to understand what you were saying. Not questioning your beliefs.

 

My post was concerning "you" asking me to prove/show/or whatever, why I believe "my position on Genesis". You keep inserting Jesus, God, and the Bible, not I.

 

Very early on I said;

 

You have stated you are an atheist. Trying to convince you God exists and is responsible for the creation of the Universe, and everything in it, the Earth, Moon, Stars would be a good thing, in my mind, but, is not the goal of this discussion. I am simply pointing out the similarities in the Genesis account and evolution.

 

You argue, it doesn't follow Darwinism. I said it follows evolution.

My comment...

 

Maybe it's for someone else just reading this and seeing, perhaps for the first time: "It does kinda fit". "There have been more accounts in Biblical history verified by archaeological discoveries". "What if the whole Book "is" true". Perhaps they find their faith and belief in God and find their salvation in Christ and their lives improve. Wouldn't it be interesting if "you" helped some one find the faith, you so easily disbelieve.

... is rhetorical.

 

Yep. That is what I have been trying to say.

Well, that was disappointing.

 

For more context;

 

On the other hand, the way I see you see this is that only the true believers of your faith are able to understand anything that's written in the Bible. If that's the case, well, then you're right: I'll never understand (different than believe) what you're saying.

Yep. That is what I have been trying to say.

I understand your disappointment.

 

The rest is for RainmanTime and he has already responded to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that in the theory of evolution it follows closely to the account in Genesis. The original creates in Genesis are created in the sea, and then evenutally they appear on land and then humans appear last. The 7 days account in the Bibles does not mean 7 24 hour days, but 7 of God's days. The Bible specifies that God days are a lot longer then human days.The Bible's Genesis myth originates from the Babylonians and appears in other easter religions. So technically it is not Christian/Jewish but an almost universal myth. It is similar to the great flood myths.

The virtual universality of these myths (try the term archetypal ) is another argument for the existence of a god. And you mentioned the flood, which may well refer to the catastrophic rise in sea levels which occurred about 11,000 years ago. Of course, the flood bears more on questions relating to global warming than on the existence of a god, but it does reinforce that the myths of the old testament are not just stupid nonsense.

 

I recommend that anyone interested in the origins of human knowledge read Hamlet's Mill .

 

The universal appearance of god images in human culture may not be a PROOF of the existence of a god, but it is a powerful hint.

 

Intellectual arguments can only lead to the type of Deism so common during the "enlightenment". whereas specific beliefs come from either faith or revelation (which I tend to distrust, except, of course, when the revelations come to me, in which case they are always infallible).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7 days account in the Bibles does not mean 7 24 hour days, but 7 of God's days. The Bible specifies that God days are a lot longer then human days.

Indeed, this is true. And there is even a further distinction laid out in the Qabalistic knowledge that relates to varying levels of TIME..... and TIME is the central point of discussion on this website, if I am correct? :)

 

The Tree Of Life is represented across four, top-to-bottom LEVELS or LAYERS. The mystical teachings of Qabalah align these with the Four Worlds (layers, levels) of Creation:

 

World of Emanation (Atziluth) - The top triad on the TOL (1+2+3). Aligns with your brain and mind. From whence all thoughts and ideas you have EMANATE.

 

World of Creation (Bri'yah) - The mid triad on the TOL(4+5+6). Aligns with your heart and lungs. From whence your mind and body can now set forth a plan to CREATE.

 

World of Formation (Yetzirah) - The low triad on the TOL(7+8+9). Aligns with your gonads and urethra/anus. From whence your mind and body have the ability to FORM things that will eventually become manifest in the world.

 

World of Manifestation (Asiyah) - The 10th sphere on the TOL. 10. The completed work. Aligns with any and all RESULTS that you come to have MANIFESTED in the physical world we each interact with.

 

The Qabalistic theory is that TIME passes at different rates in all four of these worlds. It passes most quickly in the lower (more physical) levels. As you ascend upwards from Level 4 to Level 1, the length of TIME of a defined CYCLE on that level becomes longer. From DAYS to YEARS to GENERATIONS to EPOCHS.

 

So geometrically and from a standpoint of TIME, the four worlds represent four different levels of reality that each of our SELVES are existing in at the same TIME. Or IOW, in PARALLEL. We all act through our physical bodies in shorter periods of TIME (seconds to days). But all of that knowledge is captured and represented only on the lowest of the four levels of existence (Four Worlds).

 

Is each of us really FOUR beings in ONE? Living and making decisions for our future at all levels, simultaneously?

 

RMT

 

(PS - Sorry, meant to leave this link to the Work Of The Chariot site:)

 

http://www.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Teachings-FourWorlds.html

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The virtual universality of these myths (try the term archetypal ) is another argument for the existence of a god. And you mentioned the flood, which may well refer to the catastrophic rise in sea levels which occurred about 11,000 years ago. Of course, the flood bears more on questions relating to global warming than on the existence of a god, but it does reinforce that the myths of the old testament are not just stupid nonsense.

I don't really think it proves the existance of god per say. Myths usually have some sort of truth behind them, they are like a way for lessons to be passed down. But sometimes the meaning of the myth is obscured.

 

I remember talking to an Indian fellow, and he told me the Tamils believed that if you store food with a piece of charcoal it will keep away evil spirits. And it is evil spirits that cause food to spoil. The indian fellow was then laughing at the myth. Well if you translate evil spirits into poisons or poison caused by bacteria, charcoal will absorb poison. That is why filters on gas masks are made of charcoal.

 

So some indian guy a few thousand years ago noticed that if you store food with charcoal it lasts longer. Ofcourse he did not know about germs, so he assumed it kept away evil spirits.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you RainmanTime and Thank you Cosmo. Fine job.Ok, are we ready to play?

 

Let's review.

 

1st. Thomas pendrake made an innocent enough comment;

 

2nd. aboleth_lich attacked Christians and anyone else that may believe in creation, even in some oblique way. He immediately labeled religion as "bad religion"; ( "Parts" of ALL religions are incompatible with "parts" of science)

 

and goes on to describe what bad science is;

 

Interesting choice of words; "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias".

 

That's the same perception, some actual real scientists, as opposed to "our largely ignorant ancestors?", see when they look at the "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias" DATA ,used as proof of AGW/ACC but, that's another argument.

 

3rd. Thomas pendrake presented "Kurt Godel's ontological proof."

 

4th. Nicolas made what could be considered a "smart ass" comment. Nicolas said it was irony in his post 15. Let the reader decide.

 

5th. While replying to a reference by Milo.X. about weather;

 

I asked Nicolas, an acknowledged atheist;

 

6th. Thomas pendrake acknowledged my comment;

 

7th. Nicolas responded to my query; "Have you read Genesis?"

 

He quotes passages (in part) from Genesis chapter 1:11-24. Then, IMO, in a condescending manner, presented some of the standard atheist talking points for discussions involving religious belief. For brevity, I will only quote his closing statements.

 

I suppose here, I could give a lesson on grammar, since I received one on scientific theory but, I doubt it's necessary. Perhaps he sees his mistake. I wonder, what are your qualifications to make the determination of "what it really is"?

 

I'll be referring to these a little later.

 

8th. I posted, the first 10 passages from Genesis he left out so I could point out that the "light" he insisted must come before plants, came before plants.

 

(Let me take a moment for an apparently needed biology lesson. The "first land plants" did not use "photosynthesis". If you want more in depth information than that, go get a more in depth education in biology.)

 

It was created on the first day. On the fourth day, when you claim it was created, it was given a designation.

 

(RainmanTime has already pointed this out with evidence,)

 

9th. Nicolas delved into semantics.

 

10th. I tried to explain my position. Tried to use a little sarcasm, which used an improper allusion, on which I was called out and given a lecture on scientific theory. Tried to use humor (unsuccessfully it would seem.) Pointed out that the Bible can not be taken in a literal form because compared to It's initial writhing, it is now out of context and has intentional misinterpretations brought about by both Church and Kings.

 

11th. Nicolas chastised me for not presenting my reasoning, evidence, proof, whatever, while dismissing the reasoning I "had" offered. This is also where I received a lecture on "learning something new today"... even though I understood it 30 years before he was born but, whatever. I didn't point out that he stated Boyle's Law incorrectly.

 

A little more semantics and a closing statement indicating that pretty much, nothing I say is acceptable proof...to him.

 

It seems RainmanTime has but....

 

12th. I defended my position on some wishing evolution could be a law;

 

"I argue that the most irritating term in evolution is the use of the phrase "theory of evolution", instead of "law of evolution". Why do biologists and paleontologists continue to paint a huge, flashing target on their profession by using the term "theory of evolution", i.e., inviting criticism by allowing creationist and anti-science opponents to focus on the word "theory"? There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, "law of evolution", which, etymologically speaking, would stop many (not all) arguments dead in their tracks."

 

I usually cite sources but, this time I won't. Google it and look it up for yourselves. There is some contradictory information in there for you, Nicolas, but I imagine you will somehow discount it.

 

I pointed out the absurdity of demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible by demonstrating Darwin's ideas could not be taken literally, since we had new evidence that he was "wrong" on several of his observations. If you want "proof of that", go to college and study it.

 

13th. Nicolas defended Dawkins, unsuccessfully, IMO. Admitted to confusion on the subject at hand, which is understandable. Nicolas indicated that my opinion on Genesis was...

 

...Unacceptable.

 

14th. I explained "Why" he was confused and would not understand it no matter how I explained it. Reaffirmed my position ,creation accounts were NOT EXACT".

 

15th.Thomas pendrake expressed his amazement that this was so hard to understand and pointed out how "he" had never intended it was a literal description.

 

16th. I pointed out that I had not presented certain scriptures as proof, but that Nicolas had already done so, I could only have been redundant and he would only restate the disagreement he already had with the Biblical accounts.

 

17th. Nicolas chose semantics as a way to claim I had denigrated "him" along with ALL atheists.

 

18th. I responded semantically to his points as well and pointed out his misconceptions.

 

19th. Finally, RainmanTime entered the conversation with his, Part 1, of well founded information. Information I had suggested earlier, but through lack of knowledge on the subject, was unable to inject.

 

20th. Thomas pendrake pointed out that we had still not entered into consideration of the ontological proof by Godel.

 

(I admit I can't because I'm not that familiar with it.)

 

21st. kimberlyd asked about the weather.

 

22nd Milo.X. asked for clarification on part of RainmanTime's information.

 

23rd. RainmanTime answered Milo.X. and offered Part 2 of his information.

 

24th. I thanked RainmanTime.

 

25th. aboleth_lich engaged in ontological discussion on the subject.

 

26th. I stated I found aboleth_lich's post to be verbose. Well, It is. I stated that I felt his logic was invalid and suggested, as an exercise in learning, he find it himself. It is possible "I" am incorrect, but I can't see his logic as it's worded. There is someone here that might be more qualified to decide that.

 

27th. Thomas pendrake again discussed Godel's proof and wondered about aboleth_lich's understanding of physics.

 

28th. aboleth_lich wondered why I didn't just tell him what his mistake might be. Pointed out that he felt Thomas pendrake and I were "mean" (I deduced that from the original five adjectives). Defended his education and finished with something along the line of, he didn't like how we played so he was going home.

 

29th. I replied to his criticism of my behavior by pointing out "Sheldon" and I were apparently similar in our inability to properly use sarcasm or be aware when we are being condescending toward someone. Kinda like maybe the lines just above these.

 

30th. Milo.X. continued his discussion with RainmanTime on the "plurality" of God.

 

31st. thomas pendrake "complimented" aboleth_lich on his education, but still wondered how he missed some important facts. He discussed "notable" scientists that he knew or believed were NOT atheists, and offered a suggestion to Milo.X. on the plurality question.

 

32nd. Darby admonished aboleth_lich and thomas pendrake for lowering themselves to engage in trivial arguments when "some" still wondered about the Earth being at the center of the solar system.

 

(I can't help but like Darby. He's "to the point". I have been corrected by him and I respect his opinions.)

 

33rd. Nicolas woke up and began by indicating he still does not understand ad hominem and apparently, does not recognize the grammatical mistake I referred to earlier, which I suggested he might figure out on his own. Although, he may be correct... in Brazil. He says he has seen a group of Christians surround a group of atheists and vehemently attack and denigrate them for their "non-belief". Eh.. maybe. There are idiots on both sides. He includes himself as having been attacked. I wonder if he considers this, one of those times?

 

He makes comparisons where no prior mention exists. He tries to slide around the information RainmanTime has presented even though the information presented by RainmanTime, " translation, multiple interpretations, aligning verses" is exactly what is required to understand this argument. We'll get back to this post.*

 

34th. RainmanTime responds to Nicolas' "dodge" with more valid understanding of the "original" text.

 

35th. Cosmo splits this discussion off from the "wrong" thread we took off track. I apologize to Milo.X.

 

36th. There are a few more posts, but following this review, I intend to start another new direction. Maybe tomorrow.

 

*Back to Nicolas' post

 

"You" labeled yourself an atheist. I commented on what I have seen atheists do on numerous occasions. If it doesn't "fit you" why worry about it?

 

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;

 

"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."

 

No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

 

My post was concerning "you" asking me to prove/show/or whatever, why I believe "my position on Genesis". You keep inserting Jesus, God, and the Bible, not I.

 

Very early on I said;

 

My comment...

 

... is rhetorical.

 

For more context;

 

I understand your disappointment.

 

The rest is for RainmanTime and he has already responded to it.

But of course you would do that.

 

This was a nice recap of how you see things, conveniently turning a blind eye to the posts you previously ignored and also bringing up many irrelevant subjects that had nothing to do with the original question. Just for the fun of it I guess?

 

I feel like this thread could easily be split into a few others, for example:

 

  • Difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Law;
     
     
  • How to explain evolution to extra terrestrials;
     
     
  • Explaining caterpillars to a 6th years old;
     
     
  • The day Dr. Dawkins or any other biologist for that matter, stated that they would like so much for the Theory of Evolution to be named Law of Evolution, despite the fact that they already understand that this is not how theories relate to laws and how Evolution works.
     
     
  • Characteristics of an atheist and why they can't understand faith;
     
     
  • Why it is alright to pick on a foreigner's grammar when you have 30 years over him;
     
     
  • How does having a college degree allows you to constantly repeat this to improve how you feel about something;
     
     

 

 

 

And the best one:

 

  • How to steer away from a simple question by using the past 6 items and much more!
     
     

 

 

 

Anyway, I feel I should apologize for my grammar. I'm Brazilian and speak Portuguese. Learning the English language is something I've been working hard on for the past few years and the mistakes you pointed out sure are unacceptable. Also, please forgive me for future mistakes.

 

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."

 

No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

Lol, this reminds me a lot of some arguments I had with my stepson. He's 14. He used to do this more when he was younger though. Such a great kid.

 

Although, he may be correct... in Brazil.

Since they don't really teach us how to discriminate in English where I study, I would ask you exactly what you meant by that statement as it's not clear to me. But, I'm afraid this will generate 15 other posts on lunar evolution of milipides in Mars...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...