Jump to content

Genesis v. Evolution


thomas pendrake
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

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

I honestly didn't understand the new sense of the original phrase you changed :(

 

So, if I may:

 

the earth before light, light without stars, days going by without a sun, whales before land mammals, birds before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before animals.

This quote you can find in Genesis. Well, not exactly like that of course. But it's there. And that doesn't match what we know of evolution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicolas...

 

This was a nice recap of how you see things...

Feel free to do your own. Unless what follows is it.

 

...conveniently turning a blind eye to the posts you previously ignored...

I covered every post except the two that were posted as I was writing my post.

 

...and also bringing up many irrelevant subjects that had nothing to do with the original question.

Have you "never" had a real conversation?

 

It begins with one person saying they heard there really were pink elephants.

 

The next person says, "Dude, I got so drunk one time I thought I saw them."

 

Then someone adds, "You wanna compare drinking stories, listen to this..."

 

And on it goes. Conversations flow... but IMO... this one has pretty much stayed on topic. The topic has been viewed from different angles, but has stayed on track.

 

I feel like this thread could easily be split into a few others' date=' for example:[/quote']all following quotes are Nicolas'

 

Difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Law;

Been covered... I admitted it was a poor choice of words.

 

What "hasn't been covered is my evidence "against" your position.

 

How to explain evolution to extra terrestrials;

It was ET's telling "us"... well evolutionists... I though it was humorous.

 

Explaining caterpillars to a 6th years old;

That was a 6th "grader".

 

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.

Yes... as stated above, where's your response to my evidence demonstrating it has been?

 

Characteristics of an atheist and why they can't understand faith;

Completely relevant when taken in context.

 

Why it is alright to pick on a foreigner's grammar when you have 30 years over him;

The first one to "correct" the grammar or syntax or etymology of another... was you. Post #15 of this thread. In fact, you didn't just correct an error on my part, you proceeded to "lecture" me on it.

 

I still haven't "corrected" you about it, let alone lecture you about it. I haven't even pointed to exactly what the error was. I suggested, it might not be an error as far as your "translating" from Portuguese to English. Portuguese is similar to Spanish and Mexican. When I read in the Mexican language, it reads backwards to me. I was not denigrating you in any way. While you appear to have a very good grasp on English, we may be having a problem on comprehension. Don't take that wrong. There are people, born and raised in this country, who have little reading comprehension. Too many.

 

How does having a college degree allows you to constantly repeat this to improve how you feel about something;

I have never, since I have been here, made it a pissing contest on who's degree was more advanced or had Latin phrases on it. I have never formed the basis of, correct or incorrect, on a piece of paper. I have suggested, more education could be a benefit to better understanding.

 

And the best one:How to steer away from a simple question by using the past 6 items and much more!

See above on conversation... and... It hasn't.

 

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.

 

Yet somehow, it was fine for you to speak so condescendingly to me.

 

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...

 

Nope; Einstein already got it. I already answered this above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It was not my intent to offer the universality of God concepts in even the most isolated cultures (there is one isolated primitive tribe that only speaks of spirits, and a few people have tried to say this is an exception) as proof of God.. The point is that it is one factor to make actual atheism a matter of a specific faith (perhaps not always structured) that is in spite of many hints that there is most likely some sort of god. My argument is that any Atheist may be entitled to their faith, but not to pretend that it is based on science or logic.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is that any Atheist may be entitled to their faith, but not to pretend that it is based on science or logic.

I will take your argument one step further. Certain types of Atheism are a religion, except they believe in "nothing", but "nothing" is actually something. Why I state this, is there are now many atheist groups which are promising if you become an atheist you will be happier, has a study been done on this ? How do you measure happiness ?

 

People state that atheist groups are non violent, Maoism is an extreme from of atheism coupled with out beliefs. It appears to be pretty violent when it comes to conversion.

 

Belief and science are two different things. Darwin was most likely a Christian, from his writings he appeared to be Christian. A belief is something which can not be proven or disproven.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take your argument one step further. Certain types of Atheism are a religion, except they believe in "nothing", but "nothing" is actually something. Why I state this, is there are now many atheist groups which are promising if you become an atheist you will be happier, has a study been done on this ? How do you measure happiness ?People state that atheist groups are non violent, Maoism is an extreme from of atheism coupled with out beliefs. It appears to be pretty violent when it comes to conversion.

 

Belief and science are two different things. Darwin was most likely a Christian, from his writings he appeared to be Christian. A belief is something which can not be proven or disproven.

Lol, I'm curious about that type of atheism where they believe in nothing. Is there a website for these guys?

 

I only ask because the only atheism I was presented to is the exact opposite: absence of faith.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an apologist for the Papists' date=' but the Roman Church has long since denounced the geocentric view, and has some very good astronomers. I also find it astounding that anyone believes that there is any conflict between science and religion. Bad science and bad religion, perhaps. There are multiple creation myths (not a bad word, 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.

There are just a lot of issues with modern world and religion. The first off is religious Christians who feel that any mistakes or changes to the Bible must be obscured and never admitted. The Bible must be perfect, because if a mistake is found somewhere, it can lead to people questioning other parts. For this reason, a lot of Christians, no matter how much the evidence, will not admit anything in the Bible is not perfect.

 

But another issue is simply in translation of the book of Genesis. The problem is that all the debate about the first few pages of the Bible always end up in english.. when in fact, it is very easy to reconcile evolution with genesis just based on the original texts. Most people don´t know this but when the Bible is talking about the first 7 days.. the word ´day´ is different than anywhere else in the book of Genesis... it is much more accurate to translate it to ´eras´ or ´stages´ Once you do that, it makes a lot more sense when talking about the Big Bang, the formation of the universe, and evolution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I'm curious about that type of atheism where they believe in nothing. Is there a website for these guys?I only ask because the only atheism I was presented to is the exact opposite: absence of faith.

Absence of faith may be agnosticism, but atheism is a specific belief that there is no God. When you are standing around the water cooler trying to sound cool, or maybe at some bar trying to pick up some chick, or be picked up, saying that you are an agnostic may not sound as cool as saying that you are an atheist, but just remember what Dr. Carl Sagan said about it, "By some definitions atheism is very stupid." It doesn't take very much to prove that point. The belief in a specific God is a matter of faith. If that specific God is no god, it is a matter of blind faith. We know that consciousness is real, and to deny the probability that there is no Cosmic Consciousness (the Logos) that is capable of observing itself in order bring the Universe into existence just does not make a whole lot of sense.

 

I understand that logos can have many different meanings, but I stick with the one used by Philo Judea and quoted in the creation story in the Gospel according to John.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are just a lot of issues with modern world and religion. The first off is religious Christians who feel that any mistakes or changes to the Bible must be obscured and never admitted. The Bible must be perfect, because if a mistake is found somewhere, it can lead to people questioning other parts. For this reason, a lot of Christians, no matter how much the evidence, will not admit anything in the Bible is not perfect.But another issue is simply in translation of the book of Genesis. The problem is that all the debate about the first few pages of the Bible always end up in english.. when in fact, it is very easy to reconcile evolution with genesis just based on the original texts. Most people don´t know this but when the Bible is talking about the first 7 days.. the word ´day´ is different than anywhere else in the book of Genesis... it is much more accurate to translate it to ´eras´ or ´stages´ Once you do that, it makes a lot more sense when talking about the Big Bang, the formation of the universe, and evolution.

For most of the early history of Christianity, the "old testament" was not considered as canonical, even being viewed as unacceptable for Christians because of the passages in the writings of both Peter and Paul stating that the faith of Christians is not based on Jewish "myths and fables", but rather on "Christ Crucified".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(sorry I couldn't access the link you posted, it doesn't open here at work)

 

Absence of faith may be agnosticism' date=' but atheism is a specific belief that there is no God.

I do reckon there are many definitions of atheism. I've seen people defining themselves as many things, like agnostic atheists, pure atheists, non-theist, anti-theists and so on.

 

The definition you gave exists, according to this online dictionary:

 

Atheism

 

noun

 

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

... but it is not the only one. I would say that it isn't even the most correct one, from what I know about atheism. As number 2 shows, atheism means also a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

 

As I can only speak for myself, I'll tell you that my atheism is more well defined by that second statement. I also observe the community of atheists I participate and to me, it seems that we share the same feeling of "of all the definitions of god brought up, none of them was presented along with enough evidence to support their existence, so we just kinda treat them as humanity treats all the gods that once "existed" and now are "dead"."

 

I'm yet to meet an atheist that "follows" the "doctrine" of atheism. There's no such a thing.

 

When you are standing around the water cooler trying to sound cool, or maybe at some bar trying to pick up some chick, or be picked up, saying that you are an agnostic may not sound as cool as saying that you are an atheist,

This sounds to me a bit stereotyped. Maybe trying to demean someone's way of life to "water cooler chit chat" a little? I can't tell for sure. All I can say to you is that my atheism is serious, much more than trying to look cool during water breaks. Although I see it might be hard to accept or even understand that a person can live life like this, which such a preconceived view of the term. I could be jumping into this conclusion though, maybe you can show I got it wrong in your next replies. Anyway, this is the way I live my life. Away from the multiple personal concepts of deities that most people try to push on everybody. "You can only breathe because of god", "God cured you", "Pray for my safety" all this sort of things surround us and is nonsensical. We already know how breathing, fighting diseases and safety work. It has nothing to do with this or that god. But this is me, and the environment I experience in a third world country. I don't know how is the faith in deities in your part of the globe.

 

We know that consciousness is real

We are talking about the consciousness that occur in animals equipped with a brain, right? We know how that works.

 

to deny the probability that there is no Cosmic Consciousness (the Logos) that is capable of observing itself in order bring the Universe into existence just does not make a whole lot of sense.

How is this an argument? Just substitute "Cosmic Consciousness" by any other definition of god:

 

"Denying that Logos/Shiva/Allah/Zeus/Yahweh is capable of observing itself in order bring the Universe into existence just does not make a whole lot of sense".

 

I don't recall the exact category this fits in but it sounds a lot like that fallacy "You don't believe this? How can't you!? It's so obvious!". Which again, isn't an argument. Much less evidence of anything.

 

I understand that logos can have many different meanings, but I stick with the one used by Philo Judea and quoted in the creation story in the Gospel according to John.

By the way, and only if you were willing to, what is this Logos god you believe in? Could you give me a more specific definition? How is it related to the Jewish/Christian god? These are honest questions. I'm ignorant on this deity.

 

The belief in a specific God is a matter of faith. If that specific God is no god, it is a matter of blind faith.

Do you consider yourself to use blind faith to disbelief in Odin? Or do you just kinda don't care about him? Remember that this is the Odin that once ruled this world, blessed armies to win battles and healed people. A very powerful god.

 

just remember what Dr. Carl Sagan said about it, "By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

I've seen this quote being attributed to Dr. Sagan before but I can't seem to find where he said or wrote this. Do you think you can provide a reference? To me this has always sounded very unlikely to be said, specially because the poor choice of words, by Dr. Sagan.

 

I do know that these quotes are from him:

 

"In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious.

 

-"Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in the Space (1994)

 

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

 

-"Scientists & Their Gods" in U.S. News & World Report Vol. 111 (1991)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science and Religion. The existence of God. These are very interesting topics to me. It seems so easy, so very easy for online discussions on the topic to spring up, seemingly out of nowhere. I've read so many of these discussions - both formal and informal, written by laymen, scholars, and those in-between. I always get drawn into the topic and while on one hand I want to kick myself after reading the same debate yet again, I feel that I hopefully glean just a little bit more understanding of various viewpoints each time. And while I am dismayed by the tone taken at times in this thread by my fellow theists, this conversation is no exception to offering insight.

 

In fact, this thread holds a more interesting variety of viewpoints than any debate or discussion I can remember offhand. It holds everything from mathematical proofs, to mystical numerical interpretation of Ancient Hebrew (mystical is not meant as an insult), to working definitions of Atheism, to quotes from Carl Sagan - a true wealth of viewpoints and opinions.

 

In full disclosure, I am technically an Evangelical Christian. I also have a love and fascination with all things scientific, even though I have no formal training past requisite "101" classes that were part of a liberal arts college education. I continue, not without questioning and outright struggling at times, to believe in God and in the divinity of Christ. I do seem to get hints of empirical evidence of a higher being in my life, but they are only anecdotal. A perfectly timed blessing here, an unexpected solution to a problem there. And certain thoughts seem to point me to divinity.

 

An example of this would be the observation that for every increase in human knowledge, there seems to be an exponentially greater increase of what we are aware that we do not know. But, this is not necessarily conclusive evidence of a master puppeteer. Another example would be the mere existence of anything at all, and our continuing lack of knowledge as to how matter came into existence in the first place. I have seen physicist's theories on the subject, but they don't appease me. However, perhaps I can just not wrap my head around such a large question. In any case, scientific and empirical direct evidences for theism fall flat to me, personally. While I am no great philosopher, I too see pretzel logic and evidences that are either less-than-compelling or explainable in simpler ways. I do enjoy reading and learning about them, though. Perhaps one will ring true to me some day.

 

And while there may be elements of history, literature, myth, and poetry to the Bible, and even vague correlation with scientific principals, it will forever be, to me, a book of theology. Therefore, it needs not coincide with science, or even logic, to have great value to me. For me, I think that faith and science will forever be separate "lenses" on our existence. For better or for worse, I feel a different kind of understanding inside me that leads me to connect with what I believe to be a greater, sentient love. It is a discipline that I cannot necessarily explain with logic, nor do I feel that I need to.

 

At the same time, I have great respect for Atheists and Agnostics. I respect their viewpoint. It is rational and solid. It does not keep them from living a full life or from doing great good in the world. In my humble opinion, it does not even mean that they cannot respond to the will of God, do God's good work, and even receive an eternal reward. In fact, I would propose to other Christians that Atheists have at least as good a chance to end up in heaven as a believer.

 

I do have fears regarding arguments/ debates/ discussions such as these that happen online and in meatspace. I fear that they will polarize people further, separating us into deeper factions, creating undue strife. I fear that theists may be too fearful of changes to life and relationships to admit less fervor than they purport. Perhaps I am guilty of this at times. I also fear that Atheists and agnostics may not yield to the "still, small voice" inside that is the gentle urging of the spirit, for fear of ridicule or cognitive dissonance, thus giving up what I find to be a valuable "lens" in my everyday life that brings great fulfillment, challenge, and ultimately joy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...