or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Theists... Satan?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Theists... Satan? - Page 3

post #81 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you. </strong><hr></blockquote>

so where did man come from NoahJ? You really believe that God scooped up some dust and molded it into a human? Have you ever considered that your belief may be wrong? Consider us non-believers here, who are bashing you a bit, do you consider us to be 'testing' your faith, or are you so sure of your convictions, that you do not need to think about it?

I am genuinely interested.

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>
post #82 of 119
NoahJ, if you want to substitute ignorance for knowledge, go ahead. No one is going to stop you.

Fluffy, I know where you are comoing from, but I couldn't let ignorance be substituted for knowledge. Sorry.

Anyway, back to your imaginary gods and devils ...
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #83 of 119
Thread Starter 
Further up in this thread, Fluffy (iThink), wrote that he had seen science and evolution erode faith like no other theory.

From the interpretations you and NoahJ have presented, I can see how it would. But is that really the fault of evolution and science?

I think it has more to do with the kind of 'faith' you practice, than with the honest endeavors of science. It seems to me that that kind of 'faith' (that would be so upset by this) is not really faith at all.

This is very poor theology when it is infinitely more concerned with quelling man's fears of the unknown, than with contemplating God. Apathetic and poor. It wants to read everything as literally true, so that it can appropriate the power of 'the word' into a politics that NEVER makes an effort to understand 'its' poetry or work for the depth of 'its' truth. Which you are free to do, but should you do it, as you have done, then you forfeit any just complaints. You never believed, you just hoped you didn't have to die. You and your ilk are killing Christianity, not the scientists.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #84 of 119
ahem.

As I said earlier, these discussions have a way of degenerating into name-calling and shrieking very quickly. Matsu, xenu, get your fangs back inside your lips. As the old saying goes, you'll catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. You're certainly not going to change Fluffy's mind by hurling insults. If your position really is the rationally, intellectually, and theologically superior one, let your arguments stand on their own merit. Another old saying among lawyers: "If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have emotion on your side, argue the emotions. If you have neither, pound the table and yell a lot." I'm hearing a lot of yelling and table-pounding from you.

You know how you react when a creationist gets in your face and starts yelling. Fluffy's going to react the same way. Remember: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's not just a pithy bromide. I would certainly appreciate it if you would keep your emotions under control. I've been enjoying this thread thus far - I would hate to have to abandon it.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #85 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
<strong>NoahJ, if you want to substitute ignorance for knowledge, go ahead. No one is going to stop you.

Fluffy, I know where you are comoing from, but I couldn't let ignorance be substituted for knowledge. Sorry.

Anyway, back to your imaginary gods and devils ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Whatever dude. Don't read my posts and then call me ignorant. If this is going to devolve into you name calling I will feel free to back out. I am not interested in a shouting match.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #86 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>

so where did man come from NoahJ? You really believe that God scooped up some dust and molded it into a human? Have you ever considered that your belief may be wrong? Consider us non-believers here, who are bashing you a bit, do you consider us to be 'testing' your faith, or are you so sure of your convictions, that you do not need to think about it?

I am genuinely interested.

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes I believe that. The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.

You all are not testing my faith, you are testing my debating skills which are arguably rusty. I have considered that I was wrong before, but decided that it was not a correct consideration. I have plenty of respect for scientific process, and for science in general. But in this instance I am going to have to say they have no way of knowing any better than me. That far back I don't care what process you use, you cannot put God in a box and tell me what he can and cannot do. If I am wrong what has it hurt? So I don't believe I evolved from a squirrel, does that make me a bad person? Some of those on the boards are seeming to think so.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #87 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Yes I believe that. The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now this is something we can actually discuss. What does "in God's image" mean, exactly?

I find your explanation unsatisfying because of what it implies about the nature of God. If being made in God's image means our human physical body, then that suggests that the source of the image, God himself, is merely a bigger version of a human being. To me, that is putting God in a box and limiting what He is or is not. There has to be more to being made "in God's image" than simply looking like him. In my mind, God has no physical existence at all - so there is nothing to reflect and make an image in that sense.

Jesus talked about "showing a reflection of God" (not an exact quote, but the gist of His comments in John) to people. I think what he meant by that was by showing the essence of who God is - not as a physical image but a spiritual image. We show God to others (thereby reflecting his image) when we show unconditional love for others.

So my interpretation of being "made in God's image" means that we were made with a spirit of love inside us - a little piece of God planted within. That is what I understand to be a soul.

Your thoughts?
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #88 of 119
[quote]The Bible states that He made man in His own image. That image was not a squirrel or a chimpanzee.<hr></blockquote>

I don't adhere to any specific spiritual doctrine as such but I have read the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and others.

The literal, or "sundayschool" interpretation of the phrase "God made man in his own image" doesn't cut it for me one atom. It just comes over as anthropocentric and almost childlike.

Scriptures from India state that God is beyond comprehension by mind and intellect, and powerful as they are, their scope is insufficient to contain the concept of God. God is immeasurable and omnipresent right to the distant stars in the farthest reaches of space.

"Made in his(!?!) image" has little to do with the the physical appearance of humankind and far more to do with that invisible and unquantifiable spark of self-realization, awareness, power of intent, consciousness, attunement the the Universe, i.e. those aspects of God that reside in each and every one of us. blah, blah, etc etc...(language is the wrong tool for this so I stop before I get into the inevitable tangle of conceptual spaghetti)

I'm no theologian, but I don't think one really has to be; as stated God is beyond intellect. To reach that state of God-awareness requires divorcing the mind from intellectual thought and analysis, such as the state reached during deep meditation. Jesus was undoubtedly a practitioner of such, and may easily have studied yoga and related disciplines in his apparent travels before his ministry, and there are many passages in the Gospels which suggest this.

I don't even know where I stand with the "God" concept as portrayed by religions... I guess I am agnostic rather than atheist.

I found this the other day by Nadine Goldsworthy, a nice little passage:

[quote]Twilight on the beach. And ebb tide. The afternoon crowd has melted away . . . swimmers, strollers, picnicking families, and running children . . . all departed. Solitude and the vastness of ocean and sky envelop the world in a unit of harmony.

The tide enacts its daily drama. Always I ponder this mystery. What is the voice that each day bids the sea sponge the land free of its litter of broken boards, odd shoes, and dingy paper
drifts? The moon's attraction moves the tides, we know. But what direction moves the moon? And all the heavenly bodies that extend, universe beyond universe, into the farness? What is
the Prescience, indeed, that controls the cosmos? How often we have asked ourselves the imponderable question -- the awesome origin of creation.

The stillness is immense. Nothing stirs. Then upon the heart fall the words: "In the beginning God . . ."

It is a stark statement, this opening phrase of Genesis, declaring God the First Cause. Yet a growing number of philosophers and scientists are coming to its acceptance (the unscriptural
ones among them perhaps preferring such terms as Intelligence, the Absolute, or other abstract designation).

For the truth is we are confronted with the fact that, although laboratories have produced almost magic formulas to improve the conditions of human existence from its dawning until death,
the secret of life itself continues to evade the most intensive research. It would seem that the cosmic essence pulsating through all that has being is not translatable into terms of scientific
precision. Again a Biblical text asserts itself: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

Scientists agree today that the universe is one in basic substance, that every form of matter occupying space is but a varying arrangement of elements energized by the originating impulse.
Again we ask, what is this force? It is obvious that all existence is related by reason of its origin. Individuality obtains in myriad aspects in every kingdom, in mineral, flora, and fauna. Yet
underneath this diversity lies the deeper reality of one chain throughout the range of creation. Individual identity is as a drop of water in the ocean of the Whole.

"All earth's creatures are of one parentage," writes I. M. Oderberg. "The same Life-force that erupted through the early volcanoes and condensed into the material world produced us all."
(1) We know, then, we are kin to the amoeba and the skylark, the weed and the giant sequoia, to clod, lion, rainbow, and star. We are one, truly, with all being.

In the deepening evening light, I reflect on this unity of the cosmos, a majestic universe created of one substance, by one mysterious Life-force, and governed by one unerring Directive.

Sea and sky are blending into dim obscurity. Space evaporates in immensity, and time becomes one with the Infinite. . . . I realize newly the single identity of eternity and the present
moment. There is no separable Now. It is part of endless duration as a half hour is part of a day. Those who feel life to be ever-enduring know themselves to be always in eternity, whether
in incarnation or out of it. We exist in eternity. Our course lies through it in deathless continuity.

There are seeming breaks when we step off its never-ending highway to enter into spans of life, for life is the period of training necessary to our further progress in evolution. But these
interruptions are only temporary stations along our pilgrimage upon the Way. The pauses are many, for there are many lives to be lived, numberless successions of them possibly, with their
disciplines and refining experiences, before we attain the qualities to initiate us into the ultimate realization of the whole.

The nature of the lives we shall be called to enter, or those from which we have come, is not revealed. As we look about us on our planet, we note the multitude of diverse realms, separate,
except for the interdependence that links all creation. The ocean is such an order, much larger than ours. The birds' medium is removed from that of others, as is the dominion of things that
burrow the soil. Untold numbers of these domains exist within our immediate knowledge. What legions of them the universe must be housing in its immensity! And in this profusion and
complexity, which ones among them will become our worlds?

Man possesses a reasoning consciousness beyond that of his lesser creature brethren. Accordingly, we do not expect to find ourselves reduced in evolutionary stature in any future estate. If
we have failed to take advantage of opportunities afforded in one life, or have offended against its natural laws, we shall inevitably encounter less favorable conditions in the following
existence. Our return may be to similar or to varying circumstances, again in human life. But however placed, we shall not be in an inferior milieu. For the great plan of evolution is not
backwards, but forwards.

As the cycles proceed, we shall undoubtedly find worlds so differing from the one we now occupy, that it is impossible to conceive their appearance, structure, or composition, or even the
likeness we ourselves shall assume in them. Perhaps on planets and stars, identities invisible to our astronauts may be maintaining systems under conditions our human eyes and senses fail
to perceive. And could it be that even in the atmosphere, here, at this moment, tenuous presences are following in their own orbit a program peculiar to their kind, although we remain as
unaware of them as they are of us and our region?

This is not too fantastic a supposition, is it? I cannot defend it from a scholarly advantage, for I am only an amateur student of the universe. But, if true, we must believe that all these
manifestations, whatsoever their form or aspect, and in whatsoever area, are units of the Creator's family, and are therefore vitally of the Creator's concern, as are we in our familiar world.

No dismay attaches to the thought of past lives. Why, then, should we fear the ones to come? As we observe the colossal plan of the cosmos, and the guidance of the beneficent Mind that
controls the luminaries on high, yet bends to accord the smallest insect its place in the balance of the universe (as scientists tell us), should we not be persuaded that the same Mind attends us
in every phase of our sojourn on the eternal Way?

The stars have risen, for I have tarried long. They move in ordered procession across the heavens, chanting the celestial music of the spheres to creation's unfathomed farnesses. In the
beatific light that shines upon earth, I turn homeward, confident, serene.<hr></blockquote>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #89 of 119
Science and religion should not be opposed, science deals with the real and religions (should) deal with metaphysics.

The big bang theory was created by a belgium catholic priest Lemaitre, nobel prize of physics. Lemaitre make the fundamental statement that science and religion should never been mixed. For him, it was two differents matters. One of his favorite phrase was the one of Laplace "god is not an hypothesis" and he added "i have to respect for him."
religion for men like Einstein, Lemaitre are interpretations of the reality. For Einstein the laws of physics are one aspect of god.

Consciousness is one of the specificity of human being, it can fit with the description of god create humans at his image. Does not necesseraly means that god has human body, but that he give us the gift of consciousness. We can interprete also the orginal sin as the gift of consciousness, to commit a fault you have to know what is good and what is bad (what is good and what is bad is an another debate ). So we can consider that the gift of conscienthousness bring us the sin, because without conscienthousness there is no sin (the notion of sin is not applicable).
The Arthur C Clarke Book 2001 space odyssey, is a religious interpretation of the Darwin evolution (you know these chimps granted from consciousness by these strange black monolith). You can consider also that the mechanism of evolution is a gift from god. God make us coming from nothing to our state in a semi-continuous way.

So let's separate Science from Religion and life will becoming better. Science can feed religion but religion cannot replace science. Do we remember the history of Gallileo, with the stupid process of the catholic church, is there is anybody here to say that the sun turn around the earth by this time where we travel in space ? In the contrary i will be oblige to call him an ignorant
post #90 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Further up in this thread, Fluffy (iThink), wrote that he had seen science and evolution erode faith like no other theory.

From the interpretations you and NoahJ have presented, I can see how it would. But is that really the fault of evolution and science? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Let me begin by saying that evolution is a passion of mine. I have a rather extensive collection of evolutionary literature and there is truly no evidence that anyone can present to me that I have not already considered. After looking at the evidence I have concluded that it fits the creation model better than the evolutionary model, and that's pretty much the end of it.

To those that beleive in evolution, I can only hope that you have examined the evidence (not the popular interpretations of that evidence) for yourselves and have come to your conclusions in that manner instead of simply relying on others to think for you. If you have and beleive that evolution is the correct interpretation of that evidence, then so be it, and I admire your honest devotion to the scientific ideal. I have many friends who have done just that, and I do not grudge them their beliefs.

I believe that the theory of evolution is a good thing in that it raises an alternative explaination for the origin of the species, and without such challenges science cannot survive or be of any use whatsoever. However, the implication that evolution has somehow been proven in all respects and thus any opposing theories (or even opposing evidence) must not even be considered or presented is what I find contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery, and thus evolution has ceased to be a part of the science that founded it.

If I have given the impression that I believe evolution to be the enlightened road and defend creation only to appeal to the uneducated, I hope that I have cleared that up.

Evolution as a dogma (as opposed to a science) erodes faith because it pretends to have evidence of a universe without God, instead of ackowledging that the evidence is impartial, and it is the atheistic interpretation of said evidence that claims to be proof of a Godless universe. Perhaps you are different, but most people that I know do not want there to be a God, and they use any excuse available to convince themselves that He does not exist. Especially when evolutionary professors almost invariably use their classrooms to attack Christianity as a backward superstition that the educated have no business believing, it should come as no surprise that the rise of evolution as a public theory has seen a corresponding decline in belief in a personal God.

Once again, I do not intend to defend my scientific beliefs on this board, as I have done so in the past with the predictable outrage.

[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
post #91 of 119
Hmm, bit touchy, aren't we.

Ignorance : lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant.

Ignorant :
1) lacking in knowledge, or education; unenlightened.
2) Lacking in awareness or knowledge (of).
3) Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark.

NoahJ wrote :

I am not necessarily saying that there is no evolution. Animals have shown to mutate or adapt to their environment and thus "evolve". But I stand by my assertion that man did not evolve from an ape, a chimpanzee, or some squirrel. If you want to give the Chimp in the zoo a kiss though I won't stop you.

He also wrote

... unlike the theory of evolution which some smart man came up with and sounded reasonable enough, more so than things just being created by a supreme being. Evolution may be real in certain circumstances, but the universe did not evolve into existence and I damn well did not evolve from an ape.


When you push knowledge/science aside, and replace it with a faith/dogma that has been shown to have no basis in fact, that is pushing ignorance.

Ignore the science all you want. Ignore the evidence all you want. If you push creationism over evolution, you are substituting ignorance for knowledge.

Anyway, back to your man-made gods and devils ...

BTW, you didn't evolve from an ape. But, not being ignorant, you knew that.

--
Edit

Adding so you won't be offended.

BTW, evolution says NOTHING about god. It is not a godless/atheist theory. It is science.

[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: xenu ]</p>
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #92 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
Hmm, bit touchy, aren't we.<hr></blockquote>

Well let me jump out and call you ignorant and attack your views and see how you feel after the fact. By your response you so far seem to be quite satisfied that your barb stung me a bit.

[quote]Ignorance : lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant.

Ignorant :
1) lacking in knowledge, or education; unenlightened.
2) Lacking in awareness or knowledge (of).
3) Resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or awareness: an ignorant remark.<hr></blockquote>

And I take offense that you would think that this applies to me. i am not ignorant of any of the theories being put forth here, I just choose to believe that they are not entirely correct. Stubborn maybe, ignorant, no.

[quote]When you push knowledge/science aside, and replace it with a faith/dogma that has been shown to have no basis in fact, that is pushing ignorance.<hr></blockquote>

No, it is saying that you do not agree with the theory as put forth and then pressing on with your own beliefs.

[quote]Ignore the science all you want. Ignore the evidence all you want. If you push creationism over evolution, you are substituting ignorance for knowledge.<hr></blockquote>

Since when are you the one to determine what is right for everyone? The only person i have given a hard time even slightly for on this board has been The Blue Meanie when he spoke on believing in reincarnation. Even then I kept it tongue in cheek (or meant to) and tried to make it clear that I was. You ont the other hand have made no such effort. You seem to take offense that someone would even consider that evolution is not everything you believe it to be. Why is that? i am ignoring nothing, I am disagreeing and therefore not accepting the current theory as it stands.

[quote]Anyway, back to your man-made gods and devils ...<hr></blockquote>

Anyhow, back to your man made theories and interpretations.

[quote]BTW, you didn't evolve from an ape. But, not being ignorant, you knew that.<hr></blockquote>

Flamebait, not worth a response.

--
[quote]Edit

Adding so you won't be offended.

BTW, evolution says NOTHING about god. It is not a godless/atheist theory. It is science.<hr></blockquote>

You think that makes the rest of your post ok? Did you even read your post when you were typing it? Get real man.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #93 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

Now this is something we can actually discuss. What does "in God's image" mean, exactly?

I find your explanation unsatisfying because of what it implies about the nature of God. If being made in God's image means our human physical body, then that suggests that the source of the image, God himself, is merely a bigger version of a human being. To me, that is putting God in a box and limiting what He is or is not. There has to be more to being made "in God's image" than simply looking like him. In my mind, God has no physical existence at all - so there is nothing to reflect and make an image in that sense.

Jesus talked about "showing a reflection of God" (not an exact quote, but the gist of His comments in John) to people. I think what he meant by that was by showing the essence of who God is - not as a physical image but a spiritual image. We show God to others (thereby reflecting his image) when we show unconditional love for others.

So my interpretation of being "made in God's image" means that we were made with a spirit of love inside us - a little piece of God planted within. That is what I understand to be a soul.

Your thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, that is a good point. My post was not well worded in that respect and now I have been caught a bit flat footed.

I would have to say that I agree, for the most part, in how you interpret being in the image of God. (Let's see how long this lasts. )

The love is not the only part that is it, but the spirit in its entirety is the image of God. Along with that image I believe that free will is part of that as well as Love, and the fact that our souls are eternal. And much, much more. Good catch there, I made a lazy post and deserved to be slapped for it. But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal. We were man from the beginning, as God gave man rule over the earth and all the creatures of the air, sea, and earth. I believe there was a distinction from the start when man was made....
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #94 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>
But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just curious...how does the creationist theory account for the ealier versions of man, such as Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. No direct link to animals has been discovered yet, but don't the earlier forms suggest that humans evolved from a lower species?
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #95 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by jesperas:
<strong>

Just curious...how does the creationist theory account for the ealier versions of man, such as Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. No direct link to animals has been discovered yet, but don't the earlier forms suggest that humans evolved from a lower species?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The creationist theory is just a litteral read of the Bible , by consequence there is nothing said in that subject. Anyway i am sure that the creationist keeper will try to invent something to explain this ...

And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
post #96 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gods laziness perhaps?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #97 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Well, that is a good point. My post was not well worded in that respect and now I have been caught a bit flat footed.

I would have to say that I agree, for the most part, in how you interpret being in the image of God. (Let's see how long this lasts. )

The love is not the only part that is it, but the spirit in its entirety is the image of God. Along with that image I believe that free will is part of that as well as Love, and the fact that our souls are eternal. And much, much more. Good catch there, I made a lazy post and deserved to be slapped for it. But I still believe that man did not evolve from a lower mammal. We were man from the beginning, as God gave man rule over the earth and all the creatures of the air, sea, and earth. I believe there was a distinction from the start when man was made....</strong><hr></blockquote>

My concept of "the image of God" is also more complex than what I described, but it was difficult to fit it into a sentence or two. It was a rough approximation. I think we are pretty close together on that idea.

With regards to evolution, I see the "Creation of Man" as an event in which God chose to turn these advanced ape-like creatures into Human Beings. There was no point in God revealing Himself to an amoeba or frog because they were simply too primitive to comprehend Him. As His Creation generated these increasingly complex, intelligent creatures (perhaps with an occasional push from Him - we can't know one way or the other), as some point He decided that it was time He reconnected with His creation. He implanted a soul into these intelligent apes and they became Human Beings - suddenly aware of themselves, of time, and of death. They began burying their dead, instead of just leaving them where they dropped. They began to look around them a wonder at where the world came from. As civilization and learning progressed, God found ever more sophisticated ways of revealing Himself to us - calling Abraham, giving us the Law, and eventually Jesus.

One place (among many) we see this concept is in the way we describe barbaric acts: they are Inhumane (that is, unGodly), and the perpetrators are described as acting like animals. Paul continually writes about how his physical body is sinful, and his mind wants good. This mind (soul) vs. body dichotomy shows up all over, particularly in the New Testament. A divine soul (given from God) grafted on top of an animal body (evolved from other creatures) fits this model very neatly.

In giving a soul (and free will) to these creatures, the conflict between their animal natures and their divine natures began (thus sin). This may be what the whole Garden of Eden story is about. Initially, Adam and Eve represent the state of unity with creation - in other words, animals. It is only when they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil (thus free will, and the ability to sin) that they learn what death is and become afraid. It is thus an allegorical description of the transition from Animal to Man, from this point of view.

This idea of God implanting souls in animals also very handily explains Original Sin. Our inherent desire to sin comes from our animal instincts. These survival drives that work well for animals in the wild tend to get in the way for people trying to live together. My animal instincts urge me to do things that help me to reproduce at the expense of others. In other words, lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. In the animal world, the only thing that matters is passing your DNA on to the next generation. Hence this inherent drive to put myself above all others - Original Sin. It is Original because it is in my own DNA. This, by the way, is also where I lose the need for Satan. It's not "The Devil made me do it!" but rather "My DNA made me do it!" Satan is not some external supernatural agent; Satan is me - a much more frightening thought.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #98 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>

Let me begin by saying that evolution is a passion of mine. I have a rather extensive collection of evolutionary literature and there is truly no evidence that anyone can present to me that I have not already considered. After looking at the evidence I have concluded that it fits the creation model better than the evolutionary model, and that's pretty much the end of it.

To those that beleive in evolution, I can only hope that you have examined the evidence (not the popular interpretations of that evidence) for yourselves and have come to your conclusions in that manner instead of simply relying on others to think for you. If you have and beleive that evolution is the correct interpretation of that evidence, then so be it, and I admire your honest devotion to the scientific ideal. I have many friends who have done just that, and I do not grudge them their beliefs.

I believe that the theory of evolution is a good thing in that it raises an alternative explaination for the origin of the species, and without such challenges science cannot survive or be of any use whatsoever. However, the implication that evolution has somehow been proven in all respects and thus any opposing theories (or even opposing evidence) must not even be considered or presented is what I find contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery, and thus evolution has ceased to be a part of the science that founded it.

If I have given the impression that I believe evolution to be the enlightened road and defend creation only to appeal to the uneducated, I hope that I have cleared that up.

Evolution as a dogma (as opposed to a science) erodes faith because it pretends to have evidence of a universe without God, instead of ackowledging that the evidence is impartial, and it is the atheistic interpretation of said evidence that claims to be proof of a Godless universe. Perhaps you are different, but most people that I know do not want there to be a God, and they use any excuse available to convince themselves that He does not exist. Especially when evolutionary professors almost invariably use their classrooms to attack Christianity as a backward superstition that the educated have no business believing, it should come as no surprise that the rise of evolution as a public theory has seen a corresponding decline in belief in a personal God.

Once again, I do not intend to defend my scientific beliefs on this board, as I have done so in the past with the predictable outrage.

[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You leave me absolutely baffled with this. Evolution is not Atheistic, in the sense that it negates the existence of God. As with any other scientific theory (and science in general), saying "God did it" is unacceptable. I cannot (scientifically) explain a chemical reaction mechanism by simply saying "God did it." He may have, but it utterly useless as a means of advancing knowledge. If I write and publish a paper with "God did it" as the sole theory to explain my results, I have praised God but not really told anybody anything. I must elucidate each step of the reaction mechanism in exact detail so that others can read my paper and use the information in their own research.

In its essence, science is really a game. Its basic premise is, "Let's see how much of the behavior of the world we can explain without invoking any miraculous divine intervention." We may someday hit a point where there is an irreducible phenomenon that genuinely has no other explanation than "God did it." In 400+ years of scientific investigation, we have yet to hit that point. There is no "belief in science" as though it were a religion. There is belief in "the process of science produces useful knowledge", but that is quite different. Science is a verb, not a noun. It is not a "thing", it is a process for acquiring knowledge.

So, as I said in an earlier post, science does not deny the existence of God. Neither does evolution. The fact that Atheists try to use evolution that way does not change it. They are Affirming the Consequent, a fundamental logical error. Let me try and show you:

IF (there is no God) THEN (the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong) is a true statement. However, if we turn it around and "Affirm the Consequent" the statement is not necessarily true:

IF (the Creationist interpretation of Genesis is wrong) THEN (there is no God) is NOT a true statement. The correct conclusion would be that (there may or may not be God).

Anyway, it appears that ad hominem attacks on you in the past have driven you into a corner with very high defensive walls around it. I am sorry for that. However, I do science for a living - chemistry, specifically. I understand thoroughly what it is all about. Science itself is not responsible for how its theories are represented to the public. Ernest Rutherford is not responsible for blowing up Hiroshima because he discovered the atomic nucleus. If others misrepresent evolution to promote some social agenda, it is not evolution's fault. It appears you're "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" - rejecting evolution because of what others have used it for, not based on its validitiy.

If you are a young-earth creationist, then there are a whole host of problems you have to contend with. It is not a neat theory in any way shape or form. For example, according to YEC chronology, the Egyptians were building pyramids while living at the bottom of an ocean 5 miles deep. There are so many places where it directly contradicts what is obvious to the eye. All these are explained away with more hand-waving and "God did it" theories. If you want to declare Creationism as a statement of faith, you're more than welcome. As a statement of science, however, it is rather sorely lacking. Based on the evidence at hand, if evolution is ever overthrown from its position in Biology, its replacement will certainly look nothing at all like the current ideas of creationism. Scientifically, it is just plain wrong.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #99 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>

Gods laziness perhaps?</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #100 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

My concept of "the image of God" is also more complex than what I described, but it was difficult to fit it into a sentence or two. It was a rough approximation. I think we are pretty close together on that idea.

With regards to evolution, I see the "Creation of Man" as an event in which God chose to turn these advanced ape-like creatures into Human Beings. There was no point in God revealing Himself to an amoeba or frog because they were simply too primitive to comprehend Him. As His Creation generated these increasingly complex, intelligent creatures (perhaps with an occasional push from Him - we can't know one way or the other), as some point He decided that it was time He reconnected with His creation. He implanted a soul into these intelligent apes and they became Human Beings - suddenly aware of themselves, of time, and of death. They began burying their dead, instead of just leaving them where they dropped. They began to look around them a wonder at where the world came from. As civilization and learning progressed, God found ever more sophisticated ways of revealing Himself to us - calling Abraham, giving us the Law, and eventually Jesus.

One place (among many) we see this concept is in the way we describe barbaric acts: they are Inhumane (that is, unGodly), and the perpetrators are described as acting like animals. Paul continually writes about how his physical body is sinful, and his mind wants good. This mind (soul) vs. body dichotomy shows up all over, particularly in the New Testament. A divine soul (given from God) grafted on top of an animal body (evolved from other creatures) fits this model very neatly.

In giving a soul (and free will) to these creatures, the conflict between their animal natures and their divine natures began (thus sin). This may be what the whole Garden of Eden story is about. Initially, Adam and Eve represent the state of unity with creation - in other words, animals. It is only when they gain the knowledge of Good and Evil (thus free will, and the ability to sin) that they learn what death is and become afraid. It is thus an allegorical description of the transition from Animal to Man, from this point of view.

This idea of God implanting souls in animals also very handily explains Original Sin. Our inherent desire to sin comes from our animal instincts. These survival drives that work well for animals in the wild tend to get in the way for people trying to live together. My animal instincts urge me to do things that help me to reproduce at the expense of others. In other words, lie, cheat, steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. In the animal world, the only thing that matters is passing your DNA on to the next generation. Hence this inherent drive to put myself above all others - Original Sin. It is Original because it is in my own DNA. This, by the way, is also where I lose the need for Satan. It's not "The Devil made me do it!" but rather "My DNA made me do it!" Satan is not some external supernatural agent; Satan is me - a much more frightening thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your conception is very near than mine :
Consciousness is one of the specificity of human being, it can fit with the description of god create humans at his image. Does not necesseraly means that god has human body, but that he give us the gift of consciousness. We can interprete also the orginal sin as the gift of consciousness, to commit a fault you have to know what is good and what is bad (what is good and what is bad is an another debate ). So we can consider that the gift of conscienthousness bring us the sin, because without conscienthousness there is no sin (the notion of sin is not applicable).
The Arthur C Clarke Book 2001 space odyssey, is a religious interpretation of the Darwin evolution (you know these chimps granted from consciousness by these strange black monolith). You can consider also that the mechanism of evolution is a gift from god. God make us coming from nothing to our state in a semi-continuous way.

However i create for me this interpretation of the bible even if i am not beleving in god. But i have respect for this book who his the base statement of the monotheist culture, and i refuse to read it in a litteral way. In fact even if i do not believe in god ( a personal choice that have nothing to do with reason, but to faith : you believe or you don't believe) i respect church (the catholic one, because i have more knowledge on it, and i ignore the others : don't have any clues about the mormons for example) and i believe that we can find intelligent interpretation of the bible that is not in contradiction with science.
post #101 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
[QB]And also, i will be curious to know how does the creatinist theory explain that whe share 99 % of our genetic code with the chimp ?<hr></blockquote>

DNA is one constant that we find in all living things. Truthfully, I cannot explain why 99% of our DNA is the same as a chimp. I am not God. Looking at a chimp there are many feature similarities and other things that may account for why teh DNA is so similar. By feature similarities I am speaking of Arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, etc. What is all that DNA used for? Makes us look how we do, directs growth of body parts and such. So if a monkey looks just like your uncle Guido with the one eyebrow and knuckles dragging maybe that is why.

I don't pretend to understand all the science behind DNA. And I certainly don't pretend to know the mind of God. If TJM is right and God "implanted a soul" into an animal then that explanation would fit just fine. (I don't think so but it is the first time someone has put forth an evolution argument that I have thought could be a possibility.) If not then maybe God saw that he had it mostly right for a man and only needed to change a little bit of it to make him just right. After all, Gold and Lead are only a few molecules off on the Periodic Table, and yet one is near worthless and the other is a Priceless metal. Go figure.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #102 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
[snip] and i believe that we can find intelligent interpretation of the bible that is not in contradiction with science.<hr></blockquote>

I am sure that you can, and for the most part I see nothing wrong with that so long as the interpretation does not diminish what the scriptures are saying.

When you try to spin the scriptures as less than what they are because science cannot back what God did then I begin to disagree. Science says when a man has been dead for 3 days it is impossible for him to return to life, especially without outside intervention of a doctor for example. Yet my faith is based on Jesus raising from the dead in just such a manner. So science is at a loss for this and you will never be able to scientifically explain it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #103 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I am sure that you can, and for the most part I see nothing wrong with that so long as the interpretation does not diminish what the scriptures are saying.

When you try to spin the scriptures as less than what they are because science cannot back what God did then I begin to disagree. Science says when a man has been dead for 3 days it is impossible for him to return to life, especially without outside intervention of a doctor for example. Yet my faith is based on Jesus raising from the dead in just such a manner. So science is at a loss for this and you will never be able to scientifically explain it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the definition of Miracle, a miracle is a thing that canno't be explain by science.
In France we have Lourdes, the city where there is Medical miracles. From time to time, but very few there is medical miracle. The catholic church has an expert comittee who check all the miracles, they try to eliminate all the medical recovery that can be explain by sciences or psychiatry (you know hysteric comportement). You can believe in it or not (like the UFO) , but there is some clinical case who cannot be explain in an other way than a miracle (you are free to make god or not repsonsible of that miracle, or to explain this by the fact that the medical science is not enough developped yet, but there is indeed a miracle : something that science does not yet explain).

For the chimp, i just want to say that it is the animal who is the closest than us in a genitical point of vue. No other species share 99 % of our genetical DNA. The gorilla is only 98 % if my memory is correct. I must add that with the language of the signs (pardon my english) they can use 300 words and construct phrase : for example he describe a cube orange by the association of the word cube and the word orange : it's a mental construction that cannot be made by a parrot for example. Chimps is the more evoluate species of animal to communicate.

`The genitical code of the dog or monkey or cat is far different (but i have not the number, but surely very different). It just mean that in a genitical point of vue we are near from the chimp than the dog, confronted with the anthropologic studies it means that we may have a common origin, but the chimp is not our father it's a cousin (father and cousin are true only in a philogenitical point of vue, nothing to do with our parents
).
post #104 of 119
TJM, great explanation about Affirming the Consequent. I agree that evolution doesn’t discount the possibility of god, but I think it may discount the possibility of certain religions’ interpretation of Christianity and god, especially those that adhere to a more literal reading of the Bible, rather than a metaphorical one like you’ve presented. This is where the political element comes into play. Because the theory of evolution may threaten a specific religion’s beliefs, it becomes politically necessary to oppose that theory. Now I’m not saying that the same thing doesn’t happen on the evolutionism side of the issue, or anywhere else, for that matter, but I think it is one of many reasons for the schism, and why it isn’t easy to reconcile god and evolution.

Also, I am wondering about “original sin” as presented in your post. Isn’t original sin man’s disobedience of god’s command to not eat from the tree, and not just man’s gaining the knowledge of good and evil? If so, I am quite not sure how the “disobedience of god” fits in with your post about god placing souls into man...
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #105 of 119
Back to the original topic, Satan.

"And there was a war in heaven, and God cast Satan out into the Earth..."

Well we really shit-out there then. All the places in the universe God could have sent Satan, and he sent him specifically into the place where he had made his immaculate creation.

Im beginning to question Gods judgement
post #106 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by jesperas:
<strong>TJM, great explanation about Affirming the Consequent. I agree that evolution doesn’t discount the possibility of god, but I think it may discount the possibility of certain religions’ interpretation of Christianity and god, especially those that adhere to a more literal reading of the Bible, rather than a metaphorical one like you’ve presented. This is where the political element comes into play. Because the theory of evolution may threaten a specific religion’s beliefs, it becomes politically necessary to oppose that theory. Now I’m not saying that the same thing doesn’t happen on the evolutionism side of the issue, or anywhere else, for that matter, but I think it is one of many reasons for the schism, and why it isn’t easy to reconcile god and evolution.

Also, I am wondering about “original sin” as presented in your post. Isn’t original sin man’s disobedience of god’s command to not eat from the tree, and not just man’s gaining the knowledge of good and evil? If so, I am quite not sure how the “disobedience of god” fits in with your post about god placing souls into man...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Re: Affirming the Consequent: that course I took on Intro. to Logic as a Sophomore many years ago has been extremely valuble in dissecting bogus arguments - particularly advertising!

I agree with you on the roots of the evolution/creation debate. For someone raised in a Fundamentalist/Literal household, if I suggest that their interpretation of Genesis is wrong (or perhaps inferior), I'm saying that their parents/pastors/Sunday School teachers/etc. were wrong, in whom they have a huge investment of love, trust, and affection. That's a huge load of emotional baggage to try to heft, so I don't really fault people who can't let go of it. I have no real objections to Creationism as a religious doctrine. I think there are better ways to understand the Bible and God, but if it's important that they move on to something else, I'll let the Holy Spirit take care of it.

As for Original Sin, I knew I was opening a can of worms when I mentioned it. Original Sin has a very long and complicated history within Christianity. We need to distinguish between the notion of "THE" original sin (Adam eating the fruit, i.e. the First Sin), and Original Sin. What I'm referring to is the notion that we are inherently sinful from birth - we have an ingrained tendency toward disobedience toward God that we can't get rid of. It is Original in the sense that it is not learned or acquired. Where it comes from has been a matter of much debate and vehement disagreement (Augustine declared it was due to sex, for example).

My explanation for the source of O.S. above is not part of the doctrine of any denomination that I'm aware of. It's just an idea that struck me a few years ago when I was reading books like "The Selfish Gene" and "The Wisdom of the Genes". It appeared to me that science and religion were actually describing the same phenomenon from two different perspectives. The most obvious way for a sinful nature to be an inherent part of us and passed on from one generation to the next is if it is part of our genetic code. I don't pretend it is a thorough theory or would even pass theological muster under close scrutiny. For the moment, however, it works for me.

Deep down, I have a suspicion that if we can get past the rhetoric and name-calling, there are a lot of aspects of theology and science that are essentially the same ideas, but described with different terms and from different perspectives. I'm constantly trying to juggle the ideas from both fields of thought trying to find common ground. Religion and science are both valid and important ways of describing our experience on earth - and I think each has a lot to offer the other.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #107 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>Back to the original topic, Satan.

"And there was a war in heaven, and God cast Satan out into the Earth..."

Well we really shit-out there then. All the places in the universe God could have sent Satan, and he sent him specifically into the place where he had made his immaculate creation.

Im beginning to question Gods judgement </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know this for certain, I have never gotten a straight answer yet and have not taken the time to do a thourough lookup (will probably do today now though) but I believe that the timeline was God cast Satan down before man was created.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #108 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

DNA is one constant that we find in all living things. Truthfully, I cannot explain why 99% of our DNA is the same as a chimp. I am not God. Looking at a chimp there are many feature similarities and other things that may account for why teh DNA is so similar. By feature similarities I am speaking of Arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, etc. What is all that DNA used for? Makes us look how we do, directs growth of body parts and such. So if a monkey looks just like your uncle Guido with the one eyebrow and knuckles dragging maybe that is why.

I don't pretend to understand all the science behind DNA. And I certainly don't pretend to know the mind of God. If TJM is right and God "implanted a soul" into an animal then that explanation would fit just fine. (I don't think so but it is the first time someone has put forth an evolution argument that I have thought could be a possibility.) If not then maybe God saw that he had it mostly right for a man and only needed to change a little bit of it to make him just right. After all, Gold and Lead are only a few molecules off on the Periodic Table, and yet one is near worthless and the other is a Priceless metal. Go figure.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the compliment! There's hope for you yet...

Seriously, I'm impressed with you. You admitted to a misstatement, you allowed that other viewpoints are valid (are you sure you're really a creationist? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ) I'm not used to adult, thoughtful, humble behavior in this kind of a discussion. Kudos to you

The "soul implanted in an animal" idea is, AFIK, the more or less "standard model" among the denominations that have accepted evolution. There are certainly some variations on the theme, but basic idea is similar from one to another. My goal was not to "convert" you, but just to show how evolution can be incorporated into a creation theology that is consistent with an allegorical reading of Genesis. Evolution in no way denies the validity of the Bible - it just makes us see the Bible in a somewhat different light. A literal reading is one way of understanding it, but certainly not the only way.

The Original Sin stuff, OTOH, is purely my own invention. You won't hurt my feelings in the least if you think it smells like a 3-day dead skunk. I haven't really shared it with a lot of other people, so there may be a gazillion holes in it. I would appreciate your (and others') reactions to it.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #109 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I don't know this for certain, I have never gotten a straight answer yet and have not taken the time to do a thourough lookup (will probably do today now though) but I believe that the timeline was God cast Satan down before man was created.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that quote is from Revelation 12:9: "The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."

In that case, it is talking about something which is still to come (hence some of my skepticism about Satan mythology). On the other hand, you may have a different quotation in mind.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #110 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

I think that quote is from Revelation 12:9: "The great dragon was thrown down, the old serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."

In that case, it is talking about something which is still to come (hence some of my skepticism about Satan mythology). On the other hand, you may have a different quotation in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is one of many quotations in the scripture about it. However some of the quotes have been seen to be prophetic of the end times rather than of just past instances. As I said, somewhat confusing if you do not study it thoroughly.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #111 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I don't know this for certain, I have never gotten a straight answer yet and have not taken the time to do a thourough lookup (will probably do today now though) but I believe that the timeline was God cast Satan down before man was created.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, it all happened in the same 7 days, right?
post #112 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>

Well, it all happened in the same 7 days, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm. An angle on this I hadn't noticed before. If God cast Satan out of Heaven to the Earth, then the earth had to exist to catch him. Since it is generally assumed that the serpent in Gen. 2 represents Satan, he had to be there before man was created. Unfortunately, I don't see anything in Gen. 1 about God flinging Satan down in the midst of His creation week. I smell a logical flaw, somewhere...

Good call, MarkUK!
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #113 of 119
NoahJ, I asked why someone would feel ignorance is a valid alternative to knowledge.

If you can find a statement that I have made that goes against all scientific evidence, then call me ignorant.

If "my barb" stung, it is because you are thin skinned, not because I have any desire to hurt your feelings. I simply asked a question.

If you state "we did not evolved", you have made an ignorant statement. It's not about faith. It's not about being stubborn.

You have decided to ignore all the scientific evidence. You have replaced knowledge with ignorance.

Argue the mechanism of evolution all you want. That doesn't change the basic premise - that, from over 100 years of observational evidence, we evolved.

You might as well believe the earth is flat, and the moon is made of cheese. Or think we evolved from apes.

--
Edit :

I actually wasn't going to bother replying. What's the point? But you seemed to take what I said rather personally.

Back to the topic ...

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: xenu ]</p>
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #114 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
I actually wasn't going to bother replying. What's the point? But you seemed to take what I said rather personally.

Back to the topic ...
<hr></blockquote>

Whatever, you still aren't listening to yourself. You told me:

I will never understand the concept that ignorance is somehow a valid alternative to knowledge.

And you still have not explained adequately how not agreeiong with a scientist makes a person ignorant. I also don't agree that the world will be overcrowded and humans will die off either. I also don't agree that drug addiction is a disease like the flu. Not ignorance. I know allthe fact presented, the knowledge is there. I disagree with it. Tha does not make a person ignorant, once more for the cheap seats. It makes them stubborn, because they aresure of their position. Or are you ignorant of the meaning of the words ignorant and stubborn? How about the meaning of disagree? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #115 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

Hmmm. An angle on this I hadn't noticed before. If God cast Satan out of Heaven to the Earth, then the earth had to exist to catch him. Since it is generally assumed that the serpent in Gen. 2 represents Satan, he had to be there before man was created. Unfortunately, I don't see anything in Gen. 1 about God flinging Satan down in the midst of His creation week. I smell a logical flaw, somewhere...

Good call, MarkUK!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nobody said that the Bible was written in chronological order. Nor did anyone say that God put down everything about everything in there. There are even passages where God specifically censored what was going on for whatever reason.

No logical flaw here. Also, there is no mention of how long Adam and Eve were int he garden before the temptation occurred. Nor how long Adam was alive before he was given Eve as a partner. Must have been a long time as he had to name all the animals in the world first and decided that none was a suitable companion for him.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #116 of 119
Nobody said that the Bible was written in chronological order.

This is proved by the fact that after the killing of Cain (or was it able?) The sole surviving child of Adam and Eve (well actually there was their daughter as well, but I dont know what happened to her) gets a mark on his head to ward others away from killing him. Now he is shunned by every one as he wanders the world, walking from village to village. Odd since Adam and Eve were the first humans, and therefore there shouldnt BE other villages.

I get this very strong suspicion that a lot of Christian/judaist/wh'ever mythology is bastardized peices of other mythologies (Zorastorism any one?)spliced together badly. For instance the story of Noah also takes place in ancient... was it Babylon? with a guy whos name is comething like Naptsemetshep. I fear my abillity to remember forign names is pretty shitty.

As for Stan, err Santa, err Satan, I have a LOT of trouble buying the whole "Satan is evil" bit as most of his actions pre-jesus were pretty on the level with god, though perhaps more focused on opposing gods will.

Courtesy of the ever amazing Devils Dictionary by world class cynic Ambrose Beirce:
SATAN, n.
One of the Creator's lamentable mistakes, repented in sashcloth and axes. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. "There is one favor that I should like to ask," said he.
"Name it."
"Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws."
"What, wretch! you his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul -- you ask for the right to make his laws?"
"Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them himself."

It was so ordered.

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #117 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Whatever, you still aren't listening to yourself. You told me:

I will never understand the concept that ignorance is somehow a valid alternative to knowledge.

And you still have not explained adequately how not agreeiong with a scientist makes a person ignorant. I also don't agree that the world will be overcrowded and humans will die off either. I also don't agree that drug addiction is a disease like the flu. Not ignorance. I know allthe fact presented, the knowledge is there. I disagree with it. Tha does not make a person ignorant, once more for the cheap seats. It makes them stubborn, because they aresure of their position. Or are you ignorant of the meaning of the words ignorant and stubborn? How about the meaning of disagree? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

"Ignorance" I think is the wrong term. I'm not sure what the right one would be. Let me try to illustrate what I think he's getting at.

You throw a stick, a light bulb, and a styrofoam ball into a pond. All three float. A reasonable hypothesis to explain this would be that all three have densities less than water. Actually measuring the densities of each would confirm this. Your theory could then be tested by heaving a rock into the pond whose density was greater than water's. If it sinks, your theory is further confirmed. You can then generalize into the statement "All things with a density less than water will float on it, while things with a density greater than water will sink in it."

An alternative explanation is that all three float because they have a curved surface. Measuring all three would confirm this. You could confirm it by heaving in a brick which is rectangular. You then generalize to "All things which have a curved surface will float on water, while all things with flat sides will sink."

At first glance, both "theories" seem plausible, even reasonable. It seems it would be a matter of opinion as to which one you prefer. The difference, however, is in how they hold up under close scrutiny. The first one is repeatable by everyone, everywhere. It is always valid no matter what. To keep the second one valid, I have to very carefully screen the objects I will use to test it, and be sure that I am the one doing the testing each time. Other researchers elsewhere may throw a brick-shaped piece of styrofoam or a round rock. To keep my own theory valid, I must then impugn the credibility of the other researchers and make sure people only look at my data. My own data I must dishonestly screen to throw out the observations that contradict my theory.

This illustration may seem ridiculous, but it unfortunately is the way the evolution/creationism story has evolved. Evolution is a very neat, straightforward theory that very succinctly explains an enormous volume of data from all branches of science. Creationism is being promoted by people with an agenda, who have been shown time and time again to ignore inconvenient facts, doctor other "facts" to suit themselves, and impugn the credibility of those who disagree with them. The arguments they trot out to "disprove" evolution have been shown to be incorrect time and time again, yet they still use them. I can only conclude that they are deliberately lying at this point because they must know they are fallacious (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, for example, was first shown to be invalid back in the 1950s, yet it is still preached with great gusto). That they do all this in the name of God I find to be borderline blasphemy.

I suspect the conclusions you have drawn are reasonable based on the evidence you have seen. However, those providing you with the evidence may not be on the up-and-up. Any arguments or information you have picked up from the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) should be taken with a boxcar full of salt. When you start investigating what they claim versus what is really there, you will find some huge discrepencies.

And I am curious as to why you think the world will never be overcrowded. You are right in a way that drug addiction and alcoholism aren't diseases like the flu. They have a chemical and biological basis (and act like diseases in all respects), but are not caused by viruses or bacteria.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #118 of 119
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Nobody said that the Bible was written in chronological order. Nor did anyone say that God put down everything about everything in there. There are even passages where God specifically censored what was going on for whatever reason.

No logical flaw here. Also, there is no mention of how long Adam and Eve were int he garden before the temptation occurred. Nor how long Adam was alive before he was given Eve as a partner. Must have been a long time as he had to name all the animals in the world first and decided that none was a suitable companion for him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed. Just after I posted my smart-aleck remark I spotted precisely what you say here. Just keeping you on your toes...
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #119 of 119
NoahJ, do you believe the earth is flat?

All the evidence says it is not. Knowing this, there are people who believe it is. That is ignorance. They have made an ignorant statement.

You claim there is some evolution, but humans did not evolve. That is an ignorant statement.

You think evolution claims we evolved from apes. That is an ignorant statement.

If you believe evolution says something about god, that is an ignorant belief.

You have the evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge it, for religious reasons. That is replacing knowledge with ignorance.

Disagree with scientists all you want.

I would still like to know why you feel ignorance (your refusal to accept the evidence) is a valid alternative to knowledge (over 100 years of evidence).
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Theists... Satan?