|
Post by r: G-->GL(V) on Oct 15, 2006 13:27:20 GMT 7
i want to add that as you bring out your points, please make them logical. for example, "the universe and the presence of humans is too much a miracle for random chance" has a basic flaw.
1. youre not considering all other alternatives, such as random chance, alien life forms, etc. in order for this argument to hold, you must prove that all other things have not happened.
furthermore, i would like to point out that our arguments so far have been logical. we have assumed a god existed and proved that it would mean god's inexistence, which is logically inconsistent.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 15, 2006 13:48:26 GMT 7
do you really believe in the infinite monkey theorem?
|
|
Anthony
Corporal
Moderator
Posts: 90
|
Post by Anthony on Oct 15, 2006 13:54:34 GMT 7
If that's another name for a synthesis of the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution, then yes. These theories are logical, testable, and sound. There's sufficient empirical evidence for each of the above, including but not limited to expansion of the universe, the Miller and Urey experiment, and much of what we went through in Biology class.
|
|
Dan
Brigadier General
1000 years of pain!
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Dan on Oct 15, 2006 14:57:57 GMT 7
there's nothing wrong with evolution
|
|
|
Post by r: G-->GL(V) on Oct 15, 2006 15:17:08 GMT 7
we are not saying there is.
|
|
Dan
Brigadier General
1000 years of pain!
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Dan on Oct 15, 2006 15:20:35 GMT 7
okay i mean evolution coexisting with creationism
|
|
|
Post by r: G-->GL(V) on Oct 15, 2006 15:22:44 GMT 7
how come there was a huge clergical uproar when the theory of evolution was published, and the catholic church was very against it?
|
|
Dan
Brigadier General
1000 years of pain!
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Dan on Oct 15, 2006 15:53:19 GMT 7
because that's catholicism?
|
|
Anthony
Corporal
Moderator
Posts: 90
|
Post by Anthony on Oct 15, 2006 17:16:32 GMT 7
Well, the theory of evolution applied to humans does somewhat contradict the first two chapters of Genesis. 1:26, 2:7, and 2:18-22 say in a literal sense that Adam was directly created.
(Interestingly enough, can anyone tell me the biblical day he was created? 1:31 and 1:13 says it was the sixth day and plants were made on the third. 2:4-7 say he was made before plants.)
There isn't as much contradiction if the bible is taken figuratively, but if it is, it should be recognized as any other significant piece of literature. The situations and characters described should be treated as fictional. I'm not claiming that the bible must be either literal or false, but that history is either accurate or innacurate. Figurative history is innacurate.
In a similar case, Twain's Huckleberry Finn can be the literal history of a boy and an escaped slave. On the other hand, it can also figuratively and prophetically represent the story of 2 soldiers in World War II. The latter is much less likely. Similarly, Genesis is more likely to mean what it says, and less likely to refer to a mcuh later theory so rejected by the church.
The bible can be interpreted in many ways. The first lines of Genesis leave much room for even representing inheritance of acquired characteristics. How can we tell if creation in 7 days really means 65 million years, 4.5 billion years, or the said 7 days? I think the original authors said 7 days because they meants 7 days.
So, if the bible is taken literally, the first parts of Genesis are false. There isn't much reason to take it figuratively, as doing so can fit in any parameters for the history of the world. If the known age of the world suddenly changed because of a scientific breakthrough, would the figurative meaning of the bible change too? If so, how can we interpret the true meaning for sure? If not, how can we tell it refers to evolution over the Earth's 4.5 billion years, and not any other theory?
|
|
|
Post by r: G-->GL(V) on Oct 15, 2006 17:22:55 GMT 7
okay well the reason is fundamentally the same. eveolutionary evidence points to the fact that humans and all other animals rose out of unicellular protists. now isnt that against christianity?
|
|
Dan
Brigadier General
1000 years of pain!
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Dan on Oct 15, 2006 17:41:46 GMT 7
the point about "days." we have to realize that we have to inspect the Hebrew meaning of the word and not the English translation.
"If the seventh "day" continues, as Scripture indicates, we have a clue for interpreting the word yom, or "day" for each of the six creation intervals as a time span longer than twenty-four hours. Interpretation of this word became a controversial issues only in the last few hundred years, as the Bible was translated into English and widely distributed. Many readers were, and still are, unaware of the differences between Hebrew and English, and inaccurate conclusions result.
In English the day enjoys flexible usage. We refer to the day of the dinosaurs and no one misunderstands the meaning. But we recognize this usage as a figurative, acknowledging two literal definitions: a 24 hour period, from midnight to midnight, and the daylight hours. English offers many more word choices if we want to denote a longer time period.
Hebrew, however, with its tiny vocabulary (more than a thousand times smaller than English), must manifest more flexibility. Most words have several meanings that can all be considered "literal" even though these definitions may vary much more widely than English speakers find comfortable. The word yom, literally means a 24 hour period, the daylight hours, OR any long (but definite) period of time. In biblical Hebrew, no other word besides yom carries the meaning of a long period of time.
The incorrect King James English wording, "And the evening and the morning were the first day" led some English Bible readers to conclude that the only literal interpretation of day was the 24 hour interpretation."
-The Genesis Question (Hugh Ross)
So blame those people who translated the Bible. If you think a recall of all Bibles to change the word "day" is in order, then please do so.
|
|
Anthony
Corporal
Moderator
Posts: 90
|
Post by Anthony on Oct 15, 2006 18:06:04 GMT 7
I think a recall is in order for much different reasons: 1. Suggesting that "whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 31:15) See also Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:24-25, Psalm 19:7 and Matthew 5:18-20. 2. Being sexist with "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." (Timothy 2:11) Further reading at 1 Cor 14:34-35 and Numbers 31:14-18. 3. Commanding war against Muslims, atheists, and any other non-Christians - "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." (Leviticus 24:16) A lot of these absurd commands exist scattered throughout the bible. I don't think they're fit for today's youth and tomorrow's leaders. All of my references are in the familiar King James version, of course, because I can't read Hebrew.
Whether or not the word "day" is a translation error, the point stands that evolution is incompatible with Genesis. a. Assuming that a biblical day = 4.5 billion years / 6, which is the interpretation that humans finished their evolution on day 6 as given in Genesis 1 (contradicting Genesis 2), then a "day" is 750 million years. Does this mean all plants evolved within 750 million years of each other? All stars were born in 750 million years? No, as this contradicts our science. b. If "day" is looser and does not even imply chronological order (maybe as "priority"), then the bible still says that God created one couple. I'm pretty sure there's no confusion with the Hebrew "one," as in one Adam and one Eve. This doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that humanity as a race evolved from other primates. Also, again, if this "one" is figurative, then how are we supposed to knowingly interpret it as history rather than literature? c. Et cetera. Hugh Ross actually rejects evolution and abiogenesis.
|
|
Dan
Brigadier General
1000 years of pain!
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by Dan on Oct 15, 2006 19:08:24 GMT 7
Um day can be a long period of time; that doesn't mean every time "day" is used it's 750 million years. Day One could be longer or shorter than Day Two. It's a period of time.
He doesn't believe in evolution or abiogenesis as the history and origin of life but he still believes in natural evolution.
For several decades now, evolutionists have pointed to transitional forms in the fossil record for proof that their explanation for life's history is corect. The fact that the bone structures of certain large land-dwelling mammals, the mesonychids, ancient fresh-water drinking whales, ancient saltwater-drinking whales, and modern whales exhibit an apparent progression persuades them that modern whales naturally evolved from land dwelling mammals. Evolutionists often cite this progression as their best demonstration of Darwinian evolution.
Ironically, this best example in reality is the worst. No animal is a less efficient evolver than the whales. Many factors severely limit their capacity for natural-process changes and greatly enhance their probability for rapid extinction. Six include:
1. relatively small population levels 2. long generation spans 3. low numbers of progeny produced per adult 4. high complexity of morphology and biochemistry 5. enormous sizes 6. specialized food supplies
These factors limit not only whales' capacity to change through natural selection and mutations, but even their ability to adapt to change. Because of these six factors, environment changes would tend to drive whales rapidly to extinction.
Ecologists have observed several extinctions of whale species during human history, but never a measurable change within a species. God created the first sea mammals on the fifth creation day. As the fossil record documents, sea mammals have persisted on Earth from that epoch until now, though not without interruption. Multiple extinctions of sea mammals imply that God repeatedly replaced extinct species with new ones. In most cases the new species were different from the previous ones because God was changing the Earth's geology, biodeposits, and biology, step by step, in preparation for the human race.
The many "transitional" forms of whales and horses suggest that God performed more than just a few creative acts here and there, letting natural evolution fill in the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Oct 15, 2006 19:20:09 GMT 7
One day, to God, could be 75 million years by human standards.
You cannot reference the Bible for specific words or phrases that seem to suggest something. The Bible has been translated countless times, and is most likely nowhere near what God intended it to be. However, it's all we have of God's word, and recognizing that the Bible is not perfect, we (as theists) read it and honor it as God's word anyway.
And, God, and the church, are very different things. God's agents on Earth, can still be seduced by Satan. The church, and church officials can be tempted. The crusades, while they may have been done in the name of God, are not necessarily his intention.
If someone brought a gun to school tommorow, and shot everyone and claimed he was doing it for God, you cannot expect any rational person to believe that this is God's fault.
God's plan can include evolution. Maybe God created Adam and Eve through primates, instead of through "thin air".
|
|
|
Post by r: G-->GL(V) on Oct 15, 2006 19:28:54 GMT 7
dan, i believe that the chronology of a day has already been treated by anthony above. if "day" simply meant a long period of time, what would merit exactly 7 days? and would this "day" be analogous to the reference of "sabbath day" [sabbath long time]? something tells me a single word "day" cannot encompass the needs for the hebrews to convey time.
even if a day is not fixed, refer to part b of anthony's argument.
about your argument above, 1-6 also hold for human beings, and therefore subjects us to extinction? i would like to remind that similar results have been found for hundreds of species under many environments (fruit flies, bacteria, etc. all with different environments).
transitional points=evolution.
i would like to state that all anthony and my points stand unchallenged.
|
|