Originally posted by ReaperHi Phlabibit. The Bible was inspired by God. With this I mean the Holy Spirit came over the author and wrote through the person.
Hi Phlabibit. The Bible was inspired by God. With this I mean the Holy Spirit came over the author and wrote through the person.
To answer your next question, and I understand that this will be a very soft target for argument, but as yo ...[text shortened]... with a single letter, of all the manuscripts that was discovered.
How do you know? Who made you the messanger?
The original bible I believe was written in Aramaic. Later the Greeks translated it. They did not have a word for "several" or "Many" so they replaced all that with "40" (because that was a lot).
Later King James had it translated and changed the things that did not suit him.
How could it go through several translations and the dead sea scrolls back it all up thousands of years later "word for word"?
Don't get me wrong about the bible, I know most of it is true... (even the stuff that contradicts itself...) but it is a history book. Times change.
How about the bible code? That is pretty freaky stuff. I know there is a higher power behind it... but you as a human can't say anyone is wrong because there is no way for you to know for sure. I am able to say you are wrong because you seem to come across like you know everything about it. That is not possible.
Perhaps God wrote it, but it doesn't mean anyone can understand it enough to pass judgment on anyone else's ideas about it. We don't even know why he wrote it. He may have written it just to send a message to us in the future.
What if all the religions are right? These were just different books written for different cultures... Now everyone is yelling "There is only one God! He is my God!!" But we are all yelling about the same guy. Humans are wrong, not God.
I'm wrong, and so are you... we just can't live up to any of it.... we can't know for sure right now... and this is why I try to stay away from these threads.
Phla-
Originally posted by bbarrit was intended as a basic description that radiation dating methods are based on a lot of assumptions, and those assumptions are based on what we 'know'. For example, you must assume that the levels of C14 etc. have always been constant (if you could expand on the "C14 in masses of carbon has been found to be significant" statement I'd be interested).
This is flat wrong. Carbon dating does not presuppose the theory of evolution. It does presuppose other physical theory dealing with rates of decay of radioactive materials. Carbon-14 decays at a particular rate, and through measuring the amount of C-14 in a sample (along with an estimate of how much was there to begin with), one can roughly calculate an ob ...[text shortened]... the truth of ANY other scientific theory, then it is circular. This, of course, is fallacious.
Here's a brain-bender:
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in evolution. If tomorrow I became convinced evolution was true, I'd remain a Christian. On the other hand, if tomorrow I became convinced Christianity was false, I still wouldn't believe in evolution.
C. S. Lewis was a Christian who accepted evolution as part of God's maintenance of His creation. On the other hand, Darwin himself said something to the effect that the "most serious and obvious" objection to his theory was that the fossil record (i.e., the actual physical evidence!) didn't support it, and to my understanding that hasn't changed.
I can't understand why creation -vs- evolution is such a big controversy. I can't help but wonder, dumbfounded, how it is so often billed as Religion -vs- Science.
Somewhat confused,
huntingbear
...I can't understand why creation -vs- evolution is such a big controversy. I can't help but wonder, dumbfounded, how it is so often billed as Religion -vs- Science."Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."
Somewhat confused,
huntingbear[/b]
"There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: 'Let us be friends.' It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: 'Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.'"
Both quotes by Robert Ingersoll. These and other pithy quotes by famous agnostics/atheists at: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
Both quotes certainly sound good, but they don't seem to prove much of a point. The second in particular seems quite a distortion of history. The first is, well, cute. I'll certainly visit the site you mentioned. However, I see little in these quotes but propaganda, fueling the myth that some war exists between Religion and Science. No scientific discovery has yet disproven God's existence, for example. The "God of the gaps" is more a man-of-straw for anti-religious target practice than a being in whom anyone actually believes.
Now certainly some religious individuals or groups have hurt the cause of science. It is quite plain, however, that this is not the case for all religion. Therefore the war is not between Religion and Science. This is clear. On a personal note, I love science. Science helps us to discover very much about God's world. Science is a tool which when wielded is powerful and enlightening. When we make of this (or any other) tool an idol, we misuse it.
I remember believing evolution only on the authority of my biology teachers in high school, and the text books they gave me. No where have I encountered evidence for it, but again if I do, that doesn't disprove my religion. My main concern is to know what, in fact, is true. That's what eventually led me from atheism, through agnosticism, through my own made-up "spiritualism," into a reasoned belief, based on evidence, that the Bible represents actual history. That, however, is a LONG story, and probably rather dull so I'll spare you. In the meantime, my personal goals, the Christian faith, and science all aim at truth. To me, Religion and Science are allies. One, the other, or both must be perverted to produce a war between them.
-huntingbear
The beauty of this entire argument is that TIME WILL TELL.
Creationism is dogma, unsupportable by observation. It requires a "Creator". If i ever meet IT, ie, the "Creator" then it will become observable science. Until then... can you spell silly superstition?
Evolution is science. It is nothing but observation. It is based on the obvious observation that there doesn't seem to be a physical being anywhere that "caused" anything. Therefore, observe what is... Nobody can be hurt by it. It just is. Or it isn't. Time will indeed tell.
The wonderful thing about science is that nobody gives a hoot about it's "truth". It just observes what is. It will stand or fall based on fact. It is so self evident that nothing else needs saying. Dogma on the other hand requires only faith. Exclusively faith. Nothing but faith. To observe the obvious negates faith.
So nothing about the argument really matters. The universe and life as we know it is observable, reproducible and non-static. We know the mechanism of life and replication, aka, sexual reproduction. All the dogma in the world is just talk. Life answers to it's own rules. Stand back and watch it folks. All the superstition in the universe will not change it in the least. Except for generating inquisitions to kill off dissent, as has happened repeatedly when observable fact meets superstition.
Originally posted by bbarrbbarr. I did not post this originally, belgianfreak did at the end of page 1. Since you are responding to him, would you please respond to his other remarks, since he set out to give an objective opinion.
This is flat wrong. Carbon dating does not presuppose the theory of evolution. It does presuppose other physical theory dealing with rates of decay of radioactive materials. Carbon-14 decays at a particular rate, and through measuring the amount of C-14 in a sample (along with an estimate of how much was there to begin with), one can roughly calculate an ob ...[text shortened]... the truth of ANY other scientific theory, then it is circular. This, of course, is fallacious.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyyou make some valid points here, but some 'bad' ones.
The beauty of this entire argument is that TIME WILL TELL.
Creationism is dogma, unsupportable by observation.
Evolution is science. It is nothing but observation. Nobody can be hurt by it. It just is. Or it isn't. Time will indeed tell.
The wonderful thing about science is that nobody gives a hoot about it's "truth". It just observes wha ...[text shortened]... sitions to kill off dissent, as has happened repeatedly when observable fact meets superstition.
You are right that science cannot be wrong. Individual theories can be proven wrong and replaced by new ones, but science is never wrong. In the same vein, a theory can never be proven right only proven wrong (which is why we start using nul-hypotheses).
Your statement "To observe the obvious negates faith" doesn't make sense to me; could you explain?
I've already said to Reaper that demonising the opposition is a cheep shot when he insinuated that Satan was the driving force behind teachers of evolution. Don't you think it is the same to insinuate that religous types are just waiting to kill off anyone who disagrees with them? Sure it's happened in the past, but that has lots to do with powerful organisations protecting themselves, and could have been any organistion that felt threatened, It has little to do with religeon itself.
And you are right, that scientific theory can only be backed up with observation, and the problem with evolution is that (if real) it's so damned slow. Time will eventually tell , but we have to sit & wait, and I'm willing to bet that before we have time enough to prove anything, a Vogon destrucor fleet will pay us a visit about a new interstellar highway...
Originally posted by belgianfreakIndividual or groups of theory can be cut down with one or two reproducible, verifiable OBSERVATIONS. Happens all the time in science. Nobody cares. We just shrug and say, "I'll be damned. Back to the Drawing Board. Now... What can better explain what we are seeing here?" That is the power of science.
you make some valid points here, but some 'bad' ones.
You are right that science cannot be wrong. Individual theories can be proven wrong and replaced by new ones, but science is never wrong. In the same vein, a theory can ...[text shortened]... ucor fleet will pay us a visit about a new interstellar highway...
"To observe the obvious negates faith" would better be taken up by Galileo as he passed his telescope to visiting bishops and cardinals. Didn't do him much good, but it proves the point. If you observe a "fact", such as dinosaur bones, from animals, EACH LARGER than Noah's arc, unless you are a dolt, your faith will take a hit. Big time. Unless you are obtuse enough to deny that dinosaurs "really existed".
As far as demonising... cheap shots... and insinuations. I am a grumpy old man. Silliness often generates abruptness in me. I have to live in a silly world, but i don't have to take it lying down. You are wrong in saying "It has little to do with religeon itself". It has everything to do with only religion. Religion is passion and faith. Faith and passion kills, big time.
Nature is slow. "Revelation from God" is instantanious. It even works faster when the "prophet" is after "profit". That is why it is still around. Requires no thought. Is easy to believe. Is what most people believe. TV and Revelation! What a society we live in. Enough to make a grown person vomit on a good day.
I am far more worried about an invasion of Vegans than Vogons. They are more silly, hence more dangerous than Vogons.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyfair enough, but on the dinosaur thing - I've never heard anyone deny that they existed (although I'm sure that there must be someone who does somewhere), only anti-creationists say that creationists think this so are stupid. But if you think about it, dinosaurs wouldn't have to fit into the Ark would they? They died out. Left behind for the flood waters? I don't personally believe this to be the case, but there is no case to say that they had to fit into the Ark.
Individual or groups of theory can be cut down with one or two reproducible, verifiable OBSERVATIONS. Happens all the time in science. Nobody cares. We just shrug and say, "I'll be damned. Back to the Drawing Board. Now... What can better explain what we are seeing here?" That is the power of science.
"To observe the obvious negates faith" woul ...[text shortened]... about an invasion of Vegans than Vogons. They are more silly, hence more dangerous than Vogons.
One refutal of creationism that I have yet to have answered is genetic diversity. All over the owrld we have different races of people; how are these supposed to have sprung up from just Adam & Eve? And later starting just from Noah & his family? Could there even be enough diversity there to explain the 3 different blood types? What about eye colours? And thats the basic, external stuff. Bear in mind that you have refuted beneficial mutation, so benign mutation must be ruled out too.
And as long as I'm on a good rant...
In other "religion" threads lately I have stated that "I am happy for you and I hope your beliefs bring you happiness."
So why am I on a tear about this... "Creationism vs. Evolution" ? Because the notion that "Creationism" is somehow a "theory" in competition with "Evolution". Wrong. Awful. Ghastly. Worthy of scorn of the highest form.
The presentation is as follows. "Here we put forth the Theory Of Creationism. It is more valid than Evolution. Anyone who looks at the facts will admit this. Only thing is, the underlying premise... that there is a "Creator", just has to be taken on faith. But everything else proves out. Honest... Just trust me on this. It is really good solid science except for not being observable. Or reproducible. Faith is more important than observation anyway, cause, that's why god created us, so we can develop faith."
Give me a break! Show me your god. Let's study it... or him... or her as the case turns out WHEN IT SHOWS UP. Lets ask it questions. Then base our "science" on those results. Until then it is religious mumbo jumbo pure and simple. I take umbrage when superstition tries to elevate to "science". You get happy on your beliefs? Fine. Don't try to turn it into observable science. That is the most evil thing in the world. Evil is the right word. Anything that perpetuates stupidity is evil.
Geez! I wonder how I really feel about that?
Originally posted by belgianfreakNo they couldn't have died out... Noah took "two of EVERY kind" into the ark. The volumn of the ark had to be that of THREE aircraft carriers. Not possible without Magical intervention. This thing was made of wood. OR... IT IS A MYTH. DUH! I wonder which?
fair enough, but on the dinosaur thing - I've never heard anyone deny that they existed (although I'm sure that there must be someone who does somewhere), only anti-creationists say that creationists think this so are stupid. But if you think about it, dinosaurs wouldn't have to fit into the Ark would they? They died out. Left behind for the f ...[text shortened]... ar in mind that you have refuted beneficial mutation, so benign mutation must be ruled out too.
Even the obvious absurdity of the creation myth fails to ignite warning signals. "From Adam And Eve" -- what? Kids? Adam rolling in the hay with his first ten daughters? Old eve having a good time with Cain and Able, striving for a genetic diversity THAT CAN NEVER BE?
Give me a break! Or a broken neck. Laughable doesn't come close.
Did you know that science has traced a human genetic "bottle-neck" to about 70,000 years ago. Something... probably a "super volcanic eruption" destroyed all but about 4 to 5 thousand humans at that time. We know this from the mytochondrial DNA carried by females.
Not to be a downer but... A Super Volcano in Yellowstone, Wyoming has erupted every 800,000 years like clock work. We have traced three such eruptions. Guess what? It's been 850,000 years since the last one. Don't worry though because we will likely see "precursor" events like earthquakes, thermal leisions and massive displays of geothermal events before it blows. (snicker) "Mommy, why do they call it 'Old Facefull'?" . And yellowstone lake is "tilting" to the south at a rate of 1 foot per every twenty years from the bulge that will blow in the next eruption. We know this because trees that are hundreds of years old are being flooded at a steady rate on the South side of the lake as the North rises into the air. And there will be up to four feet of ash deposited across the entire globe WHEN,,, NOT IF... it next erupts? And that we will more than likely be reduced to a population of a few thousands again? But nobody cares. Perhaps fittingly.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy[warning- thread hijacking imminent]
No they couldn't have died out... Noah took "two of EVERY kind" into the ark. The volumn of the ark had to be that of THREE aircraft carriers. Not possible without Magical intervention. This thing was made of wood. OR... IT IS A MYTH. DUH! I wonder which?
Even the obvious absurdity of the creation myth fails to ignite warning signals. "From Adam ...[text shortened]... likely be reduced to a population of a few thousands again? But nobody cares. Perhaps fittingly.
Interesting point about the volcano - I don't think many people realise the number of active volcanos around. When I was living in Seattle, I took a Geology course at the UW, and one of our assignments was to calculate the probability of Mt. Ranier erupting within the next little while, based on its previous eruption frequency. The probability came out to be over 1, which I assumed was wrong. However, our instructor confirmed our results, and said that Ranier is WAY overedue for an eruption. Scary thought.
Originally posted by richjohnsonYes, the consequences of "regular" eruptions are quite serious. Up to and including Crakatoa's one, two and three. But those are babys. The Super eruptions are not even on the same scale. There are 4 known "Super Volcano's" on earth. All Active. We are talking an ejecta volumn of a hundred kilometers diameter down to a depth of 75 kilometers. When a "mini" super last erupted in north america in what is now western Idaho, it deposited 4 feet of ash in what is now nebraska. We have matched the two soils exactly, so we know for sure. This "mini" is on a scale of 10^5 times more powerful than St. Helens... but a pale 10^8 smaller than the last yellowstone eruption.
[warning- thread hijacking imminent]
Interesting point about the volcano - I don't think many people realise the number of active volcanos around. When I was living in Seattle, I took a Geology course at the UW, and one of our assi ...[text shortened]... said that Ranier is WAY overedue for an eruption. Scary thought.
The mechanism of "supers" is different from regular volcanos. In a super, you get a "pool" of magma that spreads out usually down about 50 klicks. This pool is between 50 and 100 klicks across and has a depth of 25 to 75 klicks. The pressure and heat of the pool allows "super saturation" of gasses into the magma. Primarily CO2 and H2S . This condition builds and builds until there is a release mechanism. Nobody understands this yet, but when it happens, it is pretty much over for life on earth. Time to start over... again and again and again...
This is why i get so mad at "activists" who could be helping get our civilization out into space where it belongs. Instead they are "saving" forests and "species" and learning to treat chickens like they were humans. If they saw what WILL (not might) happen the next time a "super" erupts or WHEN (not if) the next killer astroid strikes, maybe they would pull their heads out and realize that the "forests" are gonners along with all the PETA dupes. Along with all the poor meat products and humans alike.
The good news is that the EARTH DON'T CARE. It will regenerate over the next few millions of years and continue on just fine. It has done so countless times in the past. Next time you see an environmentalist bemoaning our "destruction of the planet"... take solice in the fact that the dude has no idea. The earth undergoes destruction and rebirth on a regular diet. Could care less that a few tens of thousands of species (humans included) gets killed off. Plenty more where those came from... which neatly returns us to "Creation vs. Evolution"... [Threadjacking Averted... Narrowly]😕