the bible literacy project.

[charles cure]

invert_nexus


Not that much of a stretch. You just have to look at the bible metaphorically rather than literally. Days could be any length of time, in fact, they could blend into each other. A day might not even refer to a period of time so much as a sequence of events. Man is made from dirt because the dirt (stuff of the Earth) is where life originated. Etc... It's not so much that you have to distort the bible, you just have to view it as taking very broad and general swipes at explanations.

right, but i wouldnt be willing to base any legitimate theory on a story that has to be taken metaphorically and have meanings extrapolated from it that there is no actual basis for except to reverse justify a preexisting assumption.

i also think that if we tried to do the same thing with other creation myths, or even just fantasy stories that involve the creation of the world, we would be able to with similar results. it is not a function of the story agreeing with the premise, it is the ability of people to abstractly interpret stories in ways that they otherwise never would unless they sought to make the disparities between the two theories disappear. i dont know about you, but in any other book, when i read days i think of 24 hour days and when i read dirt i think of dirt, maybe mud. its a stretch. not only that, but i do not accept as valid the idea that the bible should be taken metaphorically sometimes and literally other times. that to me makes the whole book pretty useless.

on top of this, there is no evidence that there was any concept that even closely approximated the theory of evolution at the time that the bible was written. so, say that im wrong, and the genesis chapter really is a metaphorical description of the real creation of the earth and speciation, and it can be squared in scientific terms, where did they get that idea? did god give it directly to the person who wrote genesis, and if so why was it couched it in such vague terms that needed to be taken in a really abstract way in order to be understood when faced with our eventual and inevitable empirical understanding of the situation? did god seek to keep us in the dark on this subject, or was god just playing with us to force us to use our imaginations? this whole thing is ridiculous. the bible doesnt describe evolution or anything else that mirrors reality unless you go to great lengths to extract that meaning from the passages.

Note. I'm not saying that bible says any such thing. I'm just saying that, in order to stop this ridiculous denials of science, it could be viewed as such by the religiously entrenched. If they only let go of the literal mindset in which they are ensconced.

the point here is though that if they let go of faith completely they could just accept rationality. the faith that anything in the bible is true is the essential barrier to understanding something that contradicts its message. if you take everything in the bible as a metaphor and use its passages to justify any conclusion that modern science or you yourself have just recently arrived at, then the bible itself has no more original meaning left in it, and because of that, loses its claim to impart any kind of "true" knowledge whatsoever. in that way it no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended and is worthless except as a story sort of like the lord of the rings trilogy or something.

Man is a beast of abstraction. Our greatest skill. Religion works against that (strangely, because it is a work of abstraction itself, abstraction solidified...). Religion was a necessary step in man's evolution to his present state of understanding. Religion allowed us to delve into concepts that were hitherto unknown to the species. It gave us insights into morality and into a larger world picture than we'd ever known. But, man has outgrown religion and must, like all children who come of age, put away his toys and be a man.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things."

(Muha! I love using the Bible against itself.)

thats a good quote. corinthians right?

i agree with that statement. religion has outlived its usefullness to mankind. im not saying that religion wasnt an essential step in our progression through the ages, but its about time we faced the fact that we need to move on.

 

[Raithere]

If you believe in natural selection based on observed "specization", you are making an assumption based upon the evidence that there were no external influences of the process over the eons. Given how long it takes for nature to produce a sentient being, it is absurd to call that assumption, fact.

I suppose that means that you still don't believe that tiny seeds can grow into 1000 year old, giant redwoods? How about 7,000 year-old Bristlecone Pines? I guess we have to doubt erosion, plate tectonics, and the motion of stars as well.

Sorry, no. Your statement is quite absurd.

We can observe the processes at work and make predictions. This is a crucial aspect of proving any scientific theory. When the evidence matches, whether it's historical evidence or real-time observation, it's a good indication that the theory is correct. The more agreement we find with the predictions, the more accurate it is, the more confidence we can have in the theory.

The answer, therefore, is no. We do not have to observe something for millions of years to be confident that it is accurate.

Where are the trillions and more, of missing links? Can we construct a complete tree of life that distinctly shows each microevolutionary change? One that we can, without a doubt, put each species in its place, without guessing just because the fossils look similar?

Once again, the theory of Evolution is not dependent upon the reconstruction of past events. It certainly is not dependent upon the complete reconstruction of the entire story of life on Earth. The suggestion itself is ridiculous. No subject in the whole of human knowledge can be held to the standard you propose. So if this really is your standard you must abandon all knowledge as guesses.

If natural selection occurred there should be countless fossils of unique species of life, but yet we can count the number of species that lived on the Earth.

Why would you assume that?

Bottom line: We are here debating the absolute truth of evolution, when absolute truth requires that only science prove the theory.

There is no such thing as absolute truth in science.

Can anyone prove the process of evolution without using philosophical assumptions and deductions?

This is a joke, right? You cannot 'prove' anything without relying on assumptions. You cannot even prove to me that you exist.

All we are doing right now in schools is training blind atheists or agnostics, since they are not perpared to discuss anything else.

Train them properly in philosophy and science and they will be prepared to discuss anything.

And when they find out that there is controversy to what they thought was fact, they will second guess the theories of natural selection, just like what happened to me.

Once again, there is no controversy except in the minds of those who don't really understand science and/or Evolution.

~Raithere

 

[invert_nexus]

right, but i wouldnt be willing to base any legitimate theory on a story that has to be taken metaphorically and have meanings extrapolated from it that there is no actual basis for except to reverse justify a preexisting assumption.

Of course you wouldn't. And who's asking you to?
I'm not saying that the intent of the authors of the bible was to metaphorically tell a story that can, in some general way, coincide with evolution as the origin of man. Not in the least. All I'm saying is that by interpreting the bible in such a way that it could allow people to finally accept the truth of their own senses.

By doing so, I'm not stating that the theory of evolution follows from the book of Genesis. Not even close. This would be more like a situation like the story of Galileo I told earlier. The bible myth would co-opt the theory of evolution and apply the God Stamp on it. Note that there is a lot more interpretation necessary to gibe the two stories together than I've gone through. How to explain the rib incident for instance?

But, the thing about human reasoning is that it could be done. The bible was created in just such a way. The human method of abstraction is something unique. No other animal (that we know of) has the ability to abstract as we do. To see connections all around us in a vast and ever present network of meaning. This ability (this addiction) lies at the heart of magic, religion, and science. We seek to understand. And we find meaning in everything.

i also think that if we tried to do the same thing with other creation myths, or even just fantasy stories that involve the creation of the world, we would be able to with similar results.

Of course. Some easier. Some more difficult.

You know. This is really rather interesting, this interpretation of meaning. Where does the meaning of words lie? In the words themselves? In the definition of the words? No. They lie in this vague network we all carry within ourselves. Associations and cross-referencing. This language which we hold so dear is ambiguous beyond belief. We strive and strain to make words mean specific things. To get across specific points. But, in the end, all is open to interpretation and we're misunderstood as much as we're understood. And from misunderstandings come some of the best insights of all....

By the way, the Bible was purposefully written to be ambiguous. Moreso than most texts. This is the nature of religious texts that last the ages. They must be ambiguous so that they can be reinterpreted in each succeeding age to at least fit the people somewhat. Go back in time a thousand years and see how differently the people of that time worship than those of today. And yet they worship the same god. Read the same bible. (Although most didn't read the bible back then. Such would be blasphemy. A peasant reading God's Holy Words. Imagine.)

the point here is though that if they let go of faith completely they could just accept rationality.

Do you really think so? I don't. I think that if those people who have a fanatical devotion to religion. To the Bible. Were to drop their faith in God and turn to science, to "rationality", for answers, they'd simply swap one god for another. Dogma exists in all forms of knowledge. Not merely the religious aspects. Frankly, I think we're better off with those type of people devoting themselves to religion rather than science. They'd only hold us back. But, then again, they can't seem to keep their noses out of science either...

the faith that anything in the bible is true is the essential barrier to understanding something that contradicts its message.

Ah. But what of the contradictions in the Bible itself? People must take a metaphorical view of the bible or else the whole falls apart. Perhaps there are other methods for holding the contradictions in mind without resorting to abstraction. Doublethink, for instance.

if you take everything in the bible as a metaphor and use its passages to justify any conclusion that modern science or you yourself have just recently arrived at, then the bible itself has no more original meaning left in it, and because of that, loses its claim to impart any kind of "true" knowledge whatsoever. in that way it no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended and is worthless except as a story sort of like the lord of the rings trilogy or something.

What purpose was the bible originally intended for? Surely not the purpose that it's being used for today. It wasn't meant to preach God to all the peoples of the Earth. It was a very racist and local story of a people. The Hebrews. The descendants of Abraham. You can see how in the beginning it was merely a geneology. Oral tradition of desert nomads remembering their lineage in the only way they knew how. And then through the years this got added in. That got added in. Stories taken from one cultural context or another. Some made from whole cloth (although most are adapted).

In fact, the vast majority of the bible, I feel, was written after the return from Exile. It was written by the prophets after the return as a nationalistic book to pull the people back together after their troubles. It was written to beef up their sense of national pride. The pride in their bloodlines. It was written with an emphasis on slaves triumphing over their masters (but note how the slavery was pushed back to the Pharoah rather than the Babylonians as it wasn't quite safe to talk shit about their recent masters.

The purpose of the Old Testament is not what it used for today.

Too, there are the sections on laws. Look at all those laws they have. Ever notice how so many of them are centered on skin conditions? Man, the sickly ape with no fur, and lots iof skin conditions... (Muaha!) And eating taboos. Priestly commandments. The laws are meant to unify the people. To seperate them from their neighbors. To define them by their differences to the gentiles.

And look at the New Testament. It contradicts itself possibly more than the Old. All these different tellings of the life of Jesus and few match details. Even motivations differ. And Paul. Oh, Paul. What a tricky character he was. Is there any doubt that he didn't completely transform Christianity as he found it? He remade it in his own image. His purpose? Power. (Paul's purpose is perhaps the only one that maintains itself...)

Also, consider the origins of Christianity. It was a doomsday cult. The early Christians ran out to the desert to await the end of the world. This is why they didn't write anything. This is why all we know about the Christians were written years after the events in question.

Nah.
Don't make too much out of purposes.
It's all in the interpretation.

i agree with that statement. religion has outlived its usefullness to mankind. im not saying that religion wasnt an essential step in our progression through the ages, but its about time we faced the fact that we need to move on.

I think that it might have usefulness left in it. But, the dogma has become too entrenched. When a thing doesn't grow and change then it dies. And it drags down everything connected to it.

Religion is locked in tradition and is a stone around our ankles.

I think if more people read the Bible, they'd realize that.

 

[jayleew]

Jayleew,



So. If there has been examples of speciation in the modern day then you'd be behind evolution?

Well. Guess what. Time to burn that bible of yours...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

TalkOrigins:

The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

The author continues by offering four excuses of why there is no recorded evidence of speciation. I thought only theists made excuses for their lack of evidence.

He goes on and gives some plant examples. I must admit I didn't read much into the plants, I skipped to the animals. Plants and animals are very different.

Then, he offers a bunch of mating experiments. Mating?!? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not evidenced in nature. Sexuality is evidenced and sexual preference is irrelevant to defining a species as we cannot tell what the creature's unique preference is, as an individual. Sexual preference does not qualify a unique species. We cannot predict precisely the behavior of living things.

From his own words, there is a lack of evidence of speciation, but it is just assumed by the scientific community.

As the author states, the FAQ is incomplete and open. I await the concrete evidence, not behavioral experiments within a species. Survival of the fittest does not validate macroevolution. If women only would mate with men with big heads, we might all have big heads. Does that change us as a species? There is no evidence that we can someday grow wings. The flying squirrel is not proof of macroevolution. I might classify that as microevolution, but that is not in question.

What I am asking for can only be proven over millions of years. Microevolution is not evidence of macroevolution. If it is, then maybe homosexuals are the remnant of our ancestors, and are a different species that is going extinct because of natural selection (survival of the fittest). There is no proof connecting microevolution to macroevolution, but non-theists are so adamant that there is. They have faith that there is because of the mountain of evidence of evolution.

From that article, talkorgins is still searching and the FAQ is still open...

 

[invert_nexus]

I must admit I didn't read much into the plants, I skipped to the animals. Plants and animals are very different.

How different? Do you feel that plants and animals evolve through different mechanisms? They are different only superficially.

Speaking of animals.
Are you an animal?


Anyway. Maybe the author is being careful with his words, but the fact is that in many of these cases, speciation has occurred.

A speciation event occurs when enough genetic differences rack up between two lineages that they are no longer able to mate and produce viable offspring. This has occurred several times over in the drosophila fruit fly. What more do you need? Oh. I know. You want to see one grow another eye. Or maybe sprout fur. Something like that?

Let's look at such large changes in appearances. Look at dogs. Descended from wolves, and yet their appearances differ wildly from wolves and from each other. And yet they're still able to mate.

Appearance is not urbane to speciation.

I await the concrete evidence, not behavioral experiments within a species.

Fruit flies producing sterile offspring is not 'behavioral'. The offspring are called mules and are a result of species that are still close enough to produce offspring but are seperated enough to not be able to produce viable offspring. Now. If these fruit flies entered the picture like this, it would be one thing. But they didn't. They were able to mate successfully before the genetic changes that occurred over time.

There is no proof connecting microevolution to macroevolution

So. You'll only be satisfied by drastic changes then?
You don't believe that a lot of little changes add up to one big change when viewed from far enough away?

Well. You've set your bar sufficiently high. You keep your bible then. May it do you good.

Speaking of the bible. Do you believe it's true? What do you have to say about its contradictions? What do you have to say about its changing interpretations and purposes? Do you think that the God of the Hebrews is really your god? Are you a Hebrew? Do you descend from Abraham?

 

[jayleew]

Once again, the theory of Evolution is not dependent upon the reconstruction of past events. It certainly is not dependent upon the complete reconstruction of the entire story of life on Earth. The suggestion itself is ridiculous. No subject in the whole of human knowledge can be held to the standard you propose. So if this really is your standard you must abandon all knowledge as guesses.

Because the process of macroevolution depends on many years, we need data from the past and present to reconstruct the entire story. If we can't reconstruct the story with evidence, then the conclusion is circumstancial.

Why would you assume that there should be numerous interspecies fossils?

Because that is how macroevolution works. There are countless changes from amino acids to human species.

There is no such thing as absolute truth in science.

This is a joke, right? You cannot 'prove' anything without relying on assumptions. You cannot even prove to me that you exist.

Right. There is no absolute truth in science. And because of that, how can we define macroevolution as fact? You are right, it really comes down to that scientific knowledge is not fact, but perception, observation, assumption, and prediction. Those are good, and it is reasonable to trust science with life, but not if there is an afterlife. Of course, if you don't believe in an afterlife, science is all you have and supernatural things are hogwash mumbo jumbo. We are a slave to our own boxed perception.

Once again, there is no controversy except in the minds of those who don't really understand science and/or Evolution.

~Raithere

There is plenty of controversy between scientific minds who understand science and/or evolution. Isn't that what sciforums is partially for?

 

[charles cure]

Of course you wouldn't. And who's asking you to?
I'm not saying that the intent of the authors of the bible was to metaphorically tell a story that can, in some general way, coincide with evolution as the origin of man. Not in the least. All I'm saying is that by interpreting the bible in such a way that it could allow people to finally accept the truth of their own senses.

theres an essential fallacy in your statement. if youre saying that you dont know what the intent of the bible's authors was, how can you attempt to interpret anything in it metaphorically without risking that your interpretation will twist the meaning of the passage? this sort of thing happens all the time. look at the various interpretations of the passages in the US constitution. look at the ideological wars that have broken out over interpretations of the laws, and that is a document that is recent enough where we can at least establish the original intent of some of the passages through what we know about who wrote them. interpreting the bible to fit in evolution doesnt allow people to accept the truth of their senses, it allows them to infuse the process of evolution with some kind of meaning that has no basis in actual reality. it dilutes their understanding of the issue in a significant way because they see it in the context of fantasy and not the real natural world in which it exists and is a part of.

By doing so, I'm not stating that the theory of evolution follows from the book of Genesis. Not even close. This would be more like a situation like the story of Galileo I told earlier. The bible myth would co-opt the theory of evolution and apply the God Stamp on it. Note that there is a lot more interpretation necessary to gibe the two stories together than I've gone through. How to explain the rib incident for instance?

right, which in my opinion is why it fails miserably.

But, the thing about human reasoning is that it could be done. The bible was created in just such a way. The human method of abstraction is something unique. No other animal (that we know of) has the ability to abstract as we do. To see connections all around us in a vast and ever present network of meaning. This ability (this addiction) lies at the heart of magic, religion, and science. We seek to understand. And we find meaning in everything.

because we give things meaning doesnt make the meaning valid. some people see the virgin mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and then that has meaning for them. that doesnt make the grilled cheese meaningful in its own right. you have to draw a distinction somewhere between what meaning makes sense and what meaning does not make sense. in order to actually understand something you cant just give it random bits of meaning, the meaning of the thing or event must fit into a framework of other meanings, and for any of them to be valid, the framework itself must have some kind of basis in reality, or be able to stand up to some kind of critical analysis. abstraction is an amazing ability it allows us to make great leaps of speculation in the pursuit of greater understanding, but conversely it also sometimes allows us to make great leaps of faith that lead us widely astray from anything that represents a real explanation of events. abstraction itself is a great ability but what category the abstraction itself falls into is in some ways even more important to consider.


You know. This is really rather interesting, this interpretation of meaning. Where does the meaning of words lie? In the words themselves? In the definition of the words? No. They lie in this vague network we all carry within ourselves. Associations and cross-referencing. This language which we hold so dear is ambiguous beyond belief. We strive and strain to make words mean specific things. To get across specific points. But, in the end, all is open to interpretation and we're misunderstood as much as we're understood. And from misunderstandings come some of the best insights of all....

words have several kinds of meanings, what is important is which meanings make sense and which ones dont. i can use the word yellow to describe a strawberry, but if the strawberry is not yellow then that word does not describe it. you can take it metaphorically if you want to, but incrementally the rationale for the word yellow in the description becomes more and more tenuous as the abstraction furthers from the reality of the meaning. our language is certainly ambiguous at times, but the level of ambiguity definitely makes a difference. theres a dividing line between what makes sense and what doesnt. and youre right sometimes misunderstandings provide insights, however misunderstandings have just as often proved fatal to people. who can know which result their own misunderstanding will have? thats why there are definitions for words and rules for interpretation.

By the way, the Bible was purposefully written to be ambiguous. Moreso than most texts. This is the nature of religious texts that last the ages. They must be ambiguous so that they can be reinterpreted in each succeeding age to at least fit the people somewhat. Go back in time a thousand years and see how differently the people of that time worship than those of today. And yet they worship the same god. Read the same bible. (Although most didn't read the bible back then. Such would be blasphemy. A peasant reading God's Holy Words. Imagine.)

right, something cant last unless its flexible. however, with each passing decade the bible becomes less and less flexible, something is only open to so much reinterpretation before it loses its original shape and thrust entirely. there are words in the bible. those words have meanings to us. the words have a range of interpretations. however once each interpretation in that range has been exhausted and shown to be useless as applied to the current human context, a change in point of view is desireable. i would argue that religion and reinterpretation of the bible has served us about as much as it can. we should discard it in favor of a different approach.



Do you really think so? I don't. I think that if those people who have a fanatical devotion to religion. To the Bible. Were to drop their faith in God and turn to science, to "rationality", for answers, they'd simply swap one god for another. Dogma exists in all forms of knowledge. Not merely the religious aspects. Frankly, I think we're better off with those type of people devoting themselves to religion rather than science. They'd only hold us back. But, then again, they can't seem to keep their noses out of science either...

i think that those kind of people already exist in science. i think that people whose doubts are lulled by escapism and fanatical adherence to unproveable or as yet unproven propositions are everywhere, they only pop up in the world of religion more because religion offers them a more comforting haven. they exist in science too though. there are people who are resistant to change as well, roaming unfettered about both the scientific and religious communities seeking to shoot down new discoveries or information that challenges the theories or worldviews that they accept. thats how some people are and always will be probably. i think though that if a prevailing respect for rationality replaced the acceptance of the authority of unseen deities, we could at least focus the discussion on reality.



Ah. But what of the contradictions in the Bible itself? People must take a metaphorical view of the bible or else the whole falls apart. Perhaps there are other methods for holding the contradictions in mind without resorting to abstraction. Doublethink, for instance.

doublethink though, was first presented as the pre-eminent symptom of a completely dystopian social setting in which peoples lives had been reduced to mechanical repetition and self-delusion. that seemed to be the end result of a society that could not refute the inherent contradictions of its own philosophy and descended into the downward spiral resulting from disregarding reason completely.
people can take a metaphorical view of the bible all they want, this should not be taken to mean that they can redefine the bible to make it mean things that it obviously does not mean. just because big brother said that 2+2=5 didnt make it true, it just forced people accept something that wasnt true and continuously try to keep the truth from ever entering into their consciousness. but if you were to try to build an airplane and make it fly while at the same time basing you calculations for wing length and weight ratios on the assumption that 2+2=5, it would not fly, because the mathematical fact remains whether you reinterpret it to fit your needs or not.



What purpose was the bible originally intended for? Surely not the purpose that it's being used for today. It wasn't meant to preach God to all the peoples of the Earth. It was a very racist and local story of a people. The Hebrews. The descendants of Abraham. You can see how in the beginning it was merely a geneology. Oral tradition of desert nomads remembering their lineage in the only way they knew how. And then through the years this got added in. That got added in. Stories taken from one cultural context or another. Some made from whole cloth (although most are adapted).

In fact, the vast majority of the bible, I feel, was written after the return from Exile. It was written by the prophets after the return as a nationalistic book to pull the people back together after their troubles. It was written to beef up their sense of national pride. The pride in their bloodlines. It was written with an emphasis on slaves triumphing over their masters (but note how the slavery was pushed back to the Pharoah rather than the Babylonians as it wasn't quite safe to talk shit about their recent masters.

The purpose of the Old Testament is not what it used for today.

Too, there are the sections on laws. Look at all those laws they have. Ever notice how so many of them are centered on skin conditions? Man, the sickly ape with no fur, and lots iof skin conditions... (Muaha!) And eating taboos. Priestly commandments. The laws are meant to unify the people. To seperate them from their neighbors. To define them by their differences to the gentiles.

And look at the New Testament. It contradicts itself possibly more than the Old. All these different tellings of the life of Jesus and few match details. Even motivations differ. And Paul. Oh, Paul. What a tricky character he was. Is there any doubt that he didn't completely transform Christianity as he found it? He remade it in his own image. His purpose? Power. (Paul's purpose is perhaps the only one that maintains itself...)

right and there is my point. constant reinterpretation has left the bible utterly bereft of any of its original purpose or meaning, whether you pretend to know them or not. further reinterpretation of what were already reinterpretations to begin with only takes us further and further away from the bible having any kind of concrete meaning for anyone at all, thus leaving it completely stripped of any kind of authority (moral or otherwise) that ever could have issued forth from it. this is the essential fallacy of not providing meaning for words and concepts. when you get to the point where anyones interpretation is meaningful, then no ones can be meaningful.


Nah.
Don't make too much out of purposes.
It's all in the interpretation.

i disagree. without purpose there cant be any interpretation. all interpretation really is is the substitution of one purpose for another. purpose must pre-exist interpretation or there is no way to know the difference between a valid or invalid interpretation.


I think that it might have usefulness left in it. But, the dogma has become too entrenched. When a thing doesn't grow and change then it dies. And it drags down everything connected to it.

Religion is locked in tradition and is a stone around our ankles.

I think if more people read the Bible, they'd realize that

thats why i think it is useless. christianity barely has one shred of original thought in it to begin with. you could discard the bible and find all of its best dogma and philosophy somewhere else, usually in purer and more sensible forms.

 

[jayleew]

So. You'll only be satisfied by drastic changes then?
You don't believe that a lot of little changes add up to one big change when viewed from far enough away?

Well, yes, a lot of little changes can add up to one big one, and that is what I'm asking for. Unfortunately, we only have a few hundred years of data. Not, enough to observe a big change as the sumation of many little changes.

Speaking of the bible. Do you believe it's true? What do you have to say about its contradictions? What do you have to say about its changing interpretations and purposes? Do you think that the God of the Hebrews is really your god? Are you a Hebrew? Do you descend from Abraham?

This is really a tangent, but I will answer:

I believe in God, I believe that the Bible is the word of God, but not in the literal sense. It is the ideas of God as recorded by man, so it does speak to us like a "word". The Bible has no contradictions in meaning. If we are talking about tiny little cultural differences and traditional commands, yes there is contradiction. All of the contradictions are the result of many things, but mostly because the people in the respective time period added their own tiny quirks, but nothing that will honestly earn your salvation. Some authors, like Paul, were quite direct in pointing out when they were talking from their own perspectives and God's. Others were not so clear and is all fuddled up. Put on top of that translational errors, and we have a book that is impossible to follow word for word.

The god of the Hebrews is my god, Jesus connects the dots for us Gentiles. I don't know my lineage far enough to know if I decend from Abraham, but it is conceivable I suppose.

The last thing I have to say is that if we follow the Bible word for word, we put false impressions that limit our imagination of who or what God can do or be. God was there before the Bible was written, and there were righteous men who lived in that time. Following the Bible word for word, creates a god. I made that mistake before, and it makes your faith weak and limited. As though God can only do this much and nothing more. That is why I can't sit here and completely throw out macroevolution as false, because I am not God.

There are more things that I don't know than I do. After all, answers only bring more questions. It is when you stop and say, "The issue is closed, and it is fact and all the evidence is weighed" that you could take a nasty fall from pride as the next scientist proves you wrong. To believe that that can't happen is arrogant, and I've been there. That was me at post #1.

"Truth is in the eye of the beholder." That is a wise saying, and one that I adopt, and my faith in God grows because of that attitude.

 

[Raithere]

Because the process of macroevolution depends on many years, we need data from the past and present to reconstruct the entire story. If we can't reconstruct the story with evidence, then the conclusion is circumstancial.

Wrong. It would be inference and not circumstance first off. Secondly, there is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution, they are misnomers. There is only evolution over a lesser or greater period of time.

We can use the analogy of erosion. We could conceivably break down erosion into micro and macro time-lines. We would state that micro-erosion is proven since we can easily observe the daily effects of wind and rain on the Earth's surface. But then go on to claim that erosion doesn't happen on a macro scale? That this same, observed, effect continuing for many years won't have a large scale effect on the landscape?

Obviously, the approach is erroneous.

One would have to discover factors that would prevent such small scale changes from accruing over time or, conversely, some force that caused a radical change. All else being equal, one must presume that such forces continue to do their work and change the landscape by accrual. When observations do not fall in line with this assumption they stand out. Further investigation reveals some other force or forces at work or something preventing the normal forces from acting in the way they normally do.

You cannot simply wait until you know everything to posit a solution or theory, we'd be waiting forever and accomplish nothing. So we collect data, make inferences, draw theories, gather more data, test and modify the theories or reject them as necessary. This is how science works. To date, nothing discovered disagrees with the principle aspects of Evolutionary theory. To date everything we know about life fits within the scope and measure of this theory. Many things that we have predicted from Evolution have been shown to be true. Vast areas of congruent observation in completely different fields completely match with Evolution. This is powerful evidence that the principle aspects of Evolution are about as certain as anything science has to offer.

You are right, it really comes down to that scientific knowledge is not fact, but perception, observation, assumption, and prediction. Those are good, and it is reasonable to trust science with life, but not if there is an afterlife.

This is simply ridiculous. Is one's afterlife jeopardized because people no longer believe the Universe revolves around the Earth? Or because we now know that bacteria and viruses are responsible for illnesses rather than demons? Of course not. Evolution is no more dangerous to religion or faith than the germ theory of disease.

Even as a Christian I always found a God who designed natural systems of physics and chemistry that could result in life and us far greater than one who simply wishes things into existence like a giant genie.

There is plenty of controversy between scientific minds who understand science and/or evolution.

No. The controversies that exist within science are about how it happens, not about whether it happens. Big difference.

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

Wrong. It would be inference and not circumstance first off. Secondly, there is no such thing as micro vs macro evolution, they are misnomers. There is only evolution over a lesser or greater period of time.

That depends on your perspective: I understand that if evolution is the cause for speciation, then micro and macro are the same thing. The problem is that one must assume that it is the cause for speciation. Otherwise, we have evidence for small changes, but not big changes.

You cannot simply wait until you know everything to posit a solution or theory, we'd be waiting forever and accomplish nothing. So we collect data, make inferences, draw theories, gather more data, test and modify the theories or reject them as necessary. This is how science works.

That is well and fine if we are talking about anything in nature. If something supernatural is at stake, we cannot gamble because we have been convinced by God himself, not men. There is nothing a man did that convinced me of God existence, but it was men who told me that God existed.

There is nothing that I can say that will convince you why Christians do not gamble with our soul: because we perceive that there is a soul and a gamble for it. There is no evidence for the unbeliever, but the lives of Christian men and women and speaking in tongues. If you want hard evidence, you have to take a leap of faith and God will prove himself. It sounds like a waste of time and energy, I know. Mostly, it is just perceived as foolishness.

Even as a Christian I always found a God who designed natural systems of physics and chemistry that could result in life and us far greater than one who simply wishes things into existence like a giant genie.

I don't assume to know what God can and cannot do, but if I was to do so I would say he did use the natural systems because he made them.
He says he made us from the dust, and breathed his breath into us. What he calls dust could very well be molecules.

No. The controversies that exist within science are about how it happens, not about whether it happens. Big difference.

~Raithere

That's what I mean. Evolutionary divergence creating a new species is controversial among scientists, not evolution itself. We cannot deny evolution itself because we know it occurs over time. But, the changes we observe are so small, we cannot apply the same theory to a larger timescale because we cannot test the hypothesis. Of course, in the absence of counter evidence, it is reasonable that we can apply the theory to a larger timescale. It makes sense, but there is no proof.

The reason this conflicts with Christianity is that God gave us a timeline in the Bible, and if terms like "day" and "night" mean 24 hours (there's no reason to presume otherwise), then the Earth is less than 5000 years old. The Bible gives a genealogy and also how old many lived. With this information, we can construct a timeline that conflicts with scientific dating methods.

My question is, what if all dating techniques are not calibrated accurately, and if they were they would support the Bible's timeline? So, what is millions of years old is actually only thousands of years old.

The calibration techniques used by scientists are unsatisfactory to reasonably throw away our perceived recorded history.

More assumptions as to the age of a sample are made based on the first assumption that evolution is the mother of all species of life. To accurately calibrate a dating technique, we would have to have a sample that we know is X years old because the collector recorded the date and age of the sample X years ago. Otherwise, we are making an educated guess, based on the assumption that the world is more than 5000 years old.

And we call this science? Puleese, I want E=mc^2 from science!! Not assumptions!

 

[invert_nexus]

Wow.
So that's your objection to the teaching of evolution? Because the bible pretends to know how long it's been since creation?
You're one of them. And you seem so reasonable (sort of... in a relative way.)

Wow.
I'm always amazed when I learn how much "Faith" people have that they are ready to throw away anything of any objective value for their inherited fairy tales.

Wow. What else to say but wow?

I wasn't going to respond in here until I whittled down a monster post I posted yesterday and then decided to retract and make it more legible. But how can I not respond to this?
Sheesh.

In the October issue of Scientific American, there is an article which pushes back the cooling of the earth and formation of the oceans quite a ways. According to modern dating schemes, the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. The oldest known rocks were 3.8 billion years and thus it was assumed that for the first 500 million years the Earth was a hellish lava planet. The Hadean period (you ought to like that name.) However, zircon crystals have now been found in Australia (and are expected to be found in other areas) that date back much farther. The oldest dating back to a whopping 4.3 billion years ago.

These crystals, as far as is currently known, can only form in 'cool' conditions. There were likely oceans on the Earth as far back as 4.3 billion years ago. This means that life had that much more time to form.

There are far too many methods of dating that all point to an old Earth (some of them differ as to specifics, but they all agree in general.) Your "God" is wrong if he tells you the Earth is 5000 years old.

Gambling with your soul?
You're gambling that you have a soul.
Personally, I value the mind more than the soul.
By placing such importance on your soul, you deny the world. You'd kill us all for your own posterity. You selfish bastard.

(I'll be back with a reply to Charlie's post... eventually.)

 

[(Q)]

There is nothing a man did that convinced me of God existence, but it was men who told me that God existed

So, was it god that convinced you he existed?

 

[jayleew]

There is nothing a man did that convinced me of God existence, but it was men who told me that God existed

So, was it god that convinced you he existed?

Directly, it was life and the living of my life that convinced me. It was the events that defy reason. Every aspect of my life was a lottery ticket won. It took hindsight to recognize an external force on my life, one that is in essence consistent with what the Bible explains God is.

 

[jayleew]

Wow.
I'm always amazed when I learn how much "Faith" people have that they are ready to throw away anything of any objective value for their inherited fairy tales.

I know. I am amazed at myself. I'm sick and twisted in my irrationality, and doubts plague me, but I still believe in God because of the experiences he guided me through. Nothing less than a foolish man, chasing an ideal that is beyond perception because it was shown to be the only thing I can trust in a chaotic world. That is a reasonable assesment of myself. That is not how I feel inside, but I know that is how I look.

Gambling with your soul?
You're gambling that you have a soul.

Gambling implies a risk. There is no detriment to believing in God (only benefits). If one thinks they have God figured out, then they can be dangerous to all mankind.

You'd kill us all for your own posterity. You selfish bastard.

(I'll be back with a reply to Charlie's post... eventually.)

No, that is the difference between me and a religious person. I recognize that there is no truth, only perception. And, that I cannot pretend to know what or how my god thinks. Instead, i'd love you for my own posterity.

 

[jayleew]

What does everyone think of this, is an understanding of the bible necessary for american kids to become good citizens? Do we need to teach this stuff in schools or is it a subtle encroachment by the right to christianize the education system while apparently circumventing constitutional prohibitons on the mixture of church and state?

Probably an attempt to Christianize the education system. I don't blame them, but I'm not so sure it is the right thing to do. Jesus says "come to me all that weary and heavy laden", not "you HAVE to listen to what I'm saying." Jesus and God never forced anyone to believe. God threatened those who believed in him, but sent prophets to proclaim the good news to those who would listen. We should not force a religion or religious ideals upon people like this, unless the people want it. Unfortunately, much of this government is corrupt and speaks for the minority more than for the majority. So, even if the people do want the Bible taught in schools, it will be difficult to get it passed the beaurocrats with agendas, and the judges who incorrectly interpret our constitution.

The constitution reads that this government shall not establish religion. The whole idea of seperation is found in a letter of peace, not the constitution.

Is Christianity part of the American heritage? Should we remove its influence from our public buildings where they went unnoticed for years? Should the individuals in a government position be able to practice their own religion at work, with freedom from fear of persecution and retaliation?

It would be wierd seeing a coworker give praise to Allah, Buddah, or whatever. Is that wrong? Should that be stopped?

 

[Raithere]

Otherwise, we have evidence for small changes, but not big changes.

There are no big changes, only small changes that accrue over time. The same way the wind and the rain can slowly erode a mountain range like the Rockies into a much gentler landscape like the Appalachians.

That is well and fine if we are talking about anything in nature. If something supernatural is at stake, we cannot gamble because we have been convinced by God himself, not men

I wasn’t talking about God I was talking about your requirements for what you consider knowledge.

There is no evidence for the unbeliever, but the lives of Christian men and women and speaking in tongues. If you want hard evidence, you have to take a leap of faith and God will prove himself.

I was a Christian, faithfully believing in the tenets of my church. There is faith and there is experience and there are the words of men. There is no evidence. What it comes down to is how you interpret experience.

That's what I mean. Evolutionary divergence creating a new species is controversial among scientists, not evolution itself.

That is evolution. What do you think Evolution is if not the process by which species diverge? And no, there is no controversy regarding the overriding theory.

We cannot deny evolution itself because we know it occurs over time. But, the changes we observe are so small, we cannot apply the same theory to a larger timescale because we cannot test the hypothesis.

We know that small changes accrue through the generations, this has been observed even through many thousands of generations. We can also measure change statistically from genetic material still existing from long dead creatures.

Unless someone discovers some mechanism that can prevent or reverse this accrual the only logical conclusion is that they continue to accumulate, becoming large changes over time.

Of course, in the absence of counter evidence, it is reasonable that we can apply the theory to a larger timescale. It makes sense, but there is no proof.

Once again, science is not about proof. It is about evidence. It is about congruence of data. By this measure, the “proof” for Evolution is overwhelming. It is one of the best supported theories there is.

The reason this conflicts with Christianity is that God gave us a timeline in the Bible, and if terms like "day" and "night" mean 24 hours (there's no reason to presume otherwise), then the Earth is less than 5000 years old. The Bible gives a genealogy and also how old many lived. With this information, we can construct a timeline that conflicts with scientific dating methods.

Okay you have a hypothesis. And it is supported by what data? None. Zero. Absolutely nothing in all of scientific discovery supports the hypothesis of a 5,000 or even a 12,000 year old Earth. Your only option is to throw out all of science... all physics, geology, biology... everything as hopelessly and uselessly wrong. All of that for what? Because of one book?

My question is, what if all dating techniques are not calibrated accurately, and if they were they would support the Bible's timeline?

They are calibrated across dozens of variables, how do explain such massive convergence? But even if all the dating techniques were wrong it will still be impossible for the Earth to be 5000 years old. For one, recorded history goes back further, with facts like stellar observations that confirm the timeline. So what then? Everything is a lie, all of science and all of history... except for the Bible?

More assumptions as to the age of a sample are made based on the first assumption that evolution is the mother of all species of life.

Wrong.

To accurately calibrate a dating technique, we would have to have a sample that we know is X years old because the collector recorded the date and age of the sample X years ago.

This has been done many thousands of times over.

And we call this science? Puleese

Stop listening to Hovind. He is a bald-faced liar.

~Raithere

 

[FieryIce]

www.bibleliteracy.com


this website/publishing house has produced a textbook that teaches bible literacy and supposedly can be used in schools to teach kids more about the bible, regardless of constitutional restrictions.

on their website they have some reviews of the books from different media outlets. one of them goes like this:

"Public schools have no business using Bible instruction to advance a religious agenda. But when they decline to impart knowledge about such an important subject, they are not doing anything to preserve the separation of church and state. They are merely failing their students."
Chicago Tribune (May 12, 2005)

and here is another:

“How are we to expect our young people to live up to America’s ideals if they are cut off from the stories, beliefs and metaphors that for hundreds of years gave those principles life?”
The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 12, 1999)

what i thought was interesting about this wasnt really the war that has erupted between secular and religious interests attempting to exert influence on childrens education, rather it was the fact that this is presented in a way that makes it appear that a lack of knowledge about the bible precludes an effective understanding of the principles of Americanism. I would agree with the assessment that judeo-christian themes permeate our society on most levels, but find it disturbing that a writer from the Wall Street journal is so uneducated as to not grasp the concept that these principles did not originate with the bible or christianity. I also think that most american christians today are woefully ignorant in terms of scripture but that the majority of them still seem to have some understanding of the underlying principles of the country. What does everyone think of this, is an understanding of the bible necessary for american kids to become good citizens? Do we need to teach this stuff in schools or is it a subtle encroachment by the right to christianize the education system while apparently circumventing constitutional prohibitons on the mixture of church and state?

The Bible, giving just due respect to your Creator and those out there in the Heavens (space over your head) has nothing to do with dogma. Look at an example, starting with a few questions asked of Ezra about three millennium ago, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a blast of wind, or call back for me the day that is past … or show me the picture of a voice … if you solve one of them for me, then I will show you the way you desire to see … You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; how then can your mind comprehend the way of the Most High?"

We can now answer those questions, so there is a responsibility that accompanies that comprehension.

Those were questions requiring an improved level of science and technology than was developed at Ezra’s time, for example, from oil lamps to electricity, from sandals to jets.

So get over your Hail Mary’s and use logic, deductive reasoning, teach your children what the Bible really says about our Creator and those out there.

Is there anyone in the educations system qualified to teach my children what the Bible really says?

No

 

[Ophiolite]

I've sat on the sidelines through this entire discussion since Silas, Charles, Raithere and others have been dealing more than adequately with jayleew's misunderstandings of science. However, it seems he also misunderstands his religion.

The reason this conflicts with Christianity is that God gave us a timeline in the Bible, and if terms like "day" and "night" mean 24 hours (there's no reason to presume otherwise), then the Earth is less than 5000 years old.

1. The Hebrews routinely used metaphor in their writings, so there is every reason to presume otherwise regarding what was meant by 'day' in the origin myth. jayleew, if you are genuinely ignorant of this point I shall be happy to seek out references for you.
2. less than 5000 years! Archbishop Usher declared that the creation took place in 4004 B.C. That makes it more than 6000 years old, not less than 5000. If you are so sloppy with a cornerstone of your beliefs it would seem to bring into doubt your grasp of any part of the counterevidence.

 

[(Q)]

Directly, it was life and the living of my life that convinced me. It was the events that defy reason. Every aspect of my life was a lottery ticket won. It took hindsight to recognize an external force on my life, one that is in essence consistent with what the Bible explains God is.

Events that defy reason? How so? There is usually a reasonable answer for everything, regardless of whether it is apparently evident to you or not. By not recognizing the reason outright does not automatically indicate gods did it, that is highly irrational.

How are these events consistent with the bible and its description of god, whatever that is?

There is no evidence or reasoning whatsoever that life and living have anything to do with gods other than a single book, one that has been shown to be seriously flawed in its content.

Have you never sought out second opinions on anything? Fixing a car? Doctors diagnosis?