[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.
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
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...
"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.
<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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?</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...
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.
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">
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.
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>
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? </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.
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...
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).
Comments
[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.
<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
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...
"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>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.
<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
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>
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.
<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.
<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.
<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?
<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!
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>
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">
<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.
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>
<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?
"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.
<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...
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).