Creationism

  • 142 Replies
  • 28764 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Creationism
« Reply #120 on: February 19, 2008, 04:55:57 PM »
8 Now the LORD God HAD planted a garden in the east, in Eden;

...and there he put the man he HAD formed.  This part must take place some time after the last part because it's referring to both in the past tense.

If that's not the explanation then it's really just another contradiction.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Creationism
« Reply #121 on: February 19, 2008, 04:56:28 PM »
  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Was eric religious?

LOL
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Creationism
« Reply #122 on: February 19, 2008, 04:58:35 PM »
No, it specifically states that there was no plant life on the earth before God created man (look at the passage I quoted).

That passage widely differs according to translation.  The KJV says  "And every plant of the field WAS IN THE EARTH, and every herb of the field."   The plants were there according to the KJV
I'm going to heaven, are you?

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #123 on: February 19, 2008, 05:00:05 PM »
8 Now the LORD God HAD planted a garden in the east, in Eden;

...and there he put the man he HAD formed.  This part must take place some time after the last part because it's referring to both in the past tense.

If that's not the explanation then it's really just another contradiction.

Why must it take place some time after the last part? If just indicates that they were both in the past
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: Creationism
« Reply #124 on: February 19, 2008, 05:01:21 PM »
8 Now the LORD God HAD planted a garden in the east, in Eden;

...and there he put the man he HAD formed.  This part must take place some time after the last part because it's referring to both in the past tense.

If that's not the explanation then it's really just another contradiction.

Again, God had created plant life all over the earth, in 1:11.  2:8  is the creation of a local garden created for man after the creation of man
I'm going to heaven, are you?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Creationism
« Reply #125 on: February 19, 2008, 05:03:24 PM »
  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Creationism
« Reply #126 on: February 19, 2008, 05:08:58 PM »
Roundy it depends on the translation you use

005: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
006: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
007: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: Creationism
« Reply #127 on: February 19, 2008, 05:14:31 PM »
  When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

This is a past repetition of what had happened.  Hence the past tense again.  Before God created the waters, then no plant could exist, but God did create the water and streams in 1:1  because in 1:6 he "divided the water from the water."

  2:7 is after this
I'm going to heaven, are you?

Re: Creationism
« Reply #128 on: February 19, 2008, 07:07:00 PM »
And this is why the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.  Or seriously, for that matter.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Creationism
« Reply #129 on: February 20, 2008, 01:01:26 AM »
And this is why the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.  Or seriously, for that matter.

QFT :D

I'm going to call this debate a stalemate.  It all depends on your point of view.  In my opinion, there seem to be two different stories recounting the same events here.  It's like it goes abruptly from the one account to the other.  I know that a lot of Biblical scholars agree, and probably have much better reasons for it than just that, but it's also probably not something that can be proven.

I feel like I'm debating about the shape of the earth or something. ;D
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Creationism
« Reply #130 on: February 20, 2008, 03:16:04 AM »
Quote
The order isn't important because its an allegorical story.

The argument was over whether the story in the OT is false.  If the creation account is just an allegory with no basis in fact then it is false.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: al·le·gor·i·cal 
Pronunciation: \ˌa-lə-ˈgȯr-i-kəl, -ˈgär-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1528
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of allegory
2 : having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text
— al·le·gor·i·cal·ly  \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— al·le·gor·i·cal·ness  \-kəl-nəs\ noun
Based 100% in facts. God created the universe, God created humans, Genesis describes the relationship between God, humans, and the universe.


And for the record it's a pretty poorly written allegory if it contradicts itself.  Actually, I think it's pretty commonly accepted that the two parts were originally written seperately as two different stories.
It shows that the order of these events were unimportant and not to be taken literally.

Addressing an earlier claim:

It follows then that you believe atheists to be better then Theists/Deists.
Even though the remark was not addressed to me, I would argue that Theists/Deists inhibit development of science(s).
It's not at all about being better or not.

Absolutely.  Even though the response of the response that was not directed at you was not directed at me, I would like to add something:  The Church is always a few steps behind science, only attempting to catch up when followers start leaving it behind.  Heliocentrism and evolution are the two best examples, even though we are still right in the middle of the evolution transition (the Catholic church has come around!).  Science is a very fluid and adaptive body, sometimes with major upheavals that completely change the way we viewed our world.  Religion, on the other hand, is rigid and stoic and almost entirely unchangeable because of infallible "sacred texts" and traditions. 

Let me add: it will be interesting to see if evolution brings about the destruction of religion because of this inability to adapt. 
The history of warfare between science and religion is widely acknowledged as a fabrication of anti-religious sentiment of the nineteenth century. The Catholic Church was a huge contributor to the various sciences, the man who came up with the big bang theory was a Catholic priest. Heliocentrism and evolution could be seen as exceptions to the rule, but they are minor ones at that. During Galileo's trial very few astronomers supported heliocentrism due to problems that had not yet been worked out with it, such as the earth not seeming to move. After Galileo took observations of the orbits of Jupiter's moons he presented them to the top astronomer of the period, Tyco Brahe, who was not convinced of heliocentrism.

Evolution is only a problem for religion if  the religious are literalists, which the vast majority of Christians have never been. The first influential figure to argue on a regular basis for a literal interpretation of Genesis was Martin Luther, leading figure of the Protestant reformation, and the vast majority of protestants are not literalist (the US harboring most of the worlds literalist Christians). Saint Augustine, one of the most influential figures ever in church history, said that the bible should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts our God-given reason. Darwin's leading supporter in the US was Asa Gray, a Christian. The head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins , is a born again Christian. Charles Darwin, while researching and during the publishing of his 'Origin of the Species' was a Christian (he later became agnostic after the death of his daughter). There is no conflict whatsoever between Christianity and evolution.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Creationism
« Reply #131 on: February 20, 2008, 04:45:04 AM »
god-troll, lol.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Creationism
« Reply #132 on: February 20, 2008, 07:24:08 AM »
Could you please cite your sources, Athalsu?  I'd like to do some reading. 

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Creationism
« Reply #133 on: February 20, 2008, 11:36:47 AM »
Personally I think this "war of theories" should be resolved by finding a midpoint. Nothing says "let there be light!" like the big bang.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

Re: Creationism
« Reply #134 on: February 21, 2008, 03:30:27 AM »
Could you please cite your sources, Athalsu?  I'd like to do some reading. 

About what exactly?

Historical revisionism

Medieval Science and Religion by David Lindberg covers most of it, almost all historians acknowledge that the science-religion war and the dark ages were complete fabrications.

Galileo, his theory, his trial

Galileo in Rome, The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius by William Shea and Marino Artigas, Essays on the trial of Galileo by Richard Westfall, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History by Maurice Finocchiaro. These give a complete historical view of the trial and events surrounding it.

Evolution

I don't know exactly what you are asking for here, but here goes.

How many Christians are creationist?

Quote from: http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk10.html#stats
15 Oct 1999
I have long suspected that the creationists are a small minority which by virtue of screaming loudly have been able to exert more influence than their numbers might normally allow. However I have been unable to find any statistics to support that contention, such information would have added considerably to your article about the "typical" creationist couple.
Dick Easton

reply: According to the 1997 World Almanac and the 2000 Global Evangelization Movement, there were about 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Catholics, 800 million Hindus, 1 billion atheists and non-religious persons, 325 million Buddhists, and another billion plus who also belong to religions which do not require the rejection of evolution as a matter of religion. There are only about 350,000,000 Protestants in the world plus as many again Independents, and not all of them belong to the Christian fundamentalist sects that reject evolution. According to the Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches (1999), there are about 150,000,000 members of various Christian churches in the U.S. The churches that require rejection of evolution do not enlist more than 1/3 of these members. In addition, there are about 40,000,000 atheists and members of non-Christian religions which do not require rejection of evolution as a matter of religious belief. Thus, given the fact that there are about 6 billion people on earth and about 300,000,000 Americans, it is highly likely that militant Christian fundamentalists consist of no more than about 4% of the population worldwide, and no more than about 15% of the population in the United States.

Admittedly this estimate is hopelessly optimistic as ~55% of the US population have said in polls that they believe mankind came from a single mating pair created less then 6 500 years ago. Here we have to acknowledge important things about American society. America is perhaps the most strongly Christian society in the west, more so then any of western Europe or north America (several Slavic states have greater percentages of Christians in their populations, but are not considered fully western, such as Poland (lol)). Also important is the much greater Protestant presence in US society. The father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, argued that Genesis must be taken literally. Another thing we must consider is that because they already think of themselves as God's gift to earth (American patriotism, etc) they don't feel they need to study the bible because they are already the worlds model citizens. Put all these things together and you have a bunch of people (but not all) who think that Christianity and evolution is an 'a or b' decision, so they go with 'a', the others see no problem with choosing both.

The number of American Catholics who accept evolution is much higher then the American average, because the Catholic Church has never taught it important how the earth was created, only that God created it and that God created man.

Quote from: Augustine
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

Quote from:  Thomas Aquinas
Since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

Outside of the US, the vast majority of Protestants accept evolution, as they see no conflict between it and the bible. It may seem strange that Protestants would reject something that Luther argued for, but he was hardly a perfect person, and also argued that Jew's homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed.

So wide-spread creationism in Christianity is an aberration, and exists only in America's Protestant population (particularly  the Evangelical and Charismatic denominations).

Are Christianity and the Bible irreconcilable with evolution?

Evolution posits that all living things on earth descend from a single life form that existed millions of years ago. None of this disagrees with the bible. Lets read some of Genesis in case you disagree.

Quote from: Genesis 2:7
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Notice that? God created man out of dust, out of nature, unlike the universe, which was created out of nothing.

Quote from: Genesis2:19
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
So man and animal are from the same source, and share the same substance, the DNA present in all humans, animals, and plants.

Quote from: Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image"
Christians have always understood that God is spiritual, not material. So this similarity must be in the spirit, which in Christianity is the at the core of the mind. Darwin remarked "of all the difference between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is the most important." Man has the gift of reason, and through it, it conscience.

And none of this contradicts with what early Christians believed, because early Christians believed man to be an animal, the rational animal, who stood between the angels and the animals and could choose to be either.

The gist of my argument against the science-religion war came from Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity
There are a lot of books about evolution and Christianity, the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which is about him being Christian and an evolutionary biologist.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Creationism
« Reply #135 on: February 25, 2008, 09:10:32 PM »
Overkill.  But I'll check some out at my local trendy bookstore.  Thanks. 

Re: Creationism
« Reply #136 on: February 25, 2008, 09:16:42 PM »
The last two will probably suffice.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Creationism
« Reply #137 on: February 26, 2008, 12:17:04 AM »
I haven't read your sources yet, but i would like to comment on your response based on what I understand right now. 
Quote
The history of warfare between science and religion is widely acknowledged as a fabrication of anti-religious sentiment of the nineteenth century. The Catholic Church was a huge contributor to the various sciences, the man who came up with the big bang theory was a Catholic priest. Heliocentrism and evolution could be seen as exceptions to the rule, but they are minor ones at that. During Galileo's trial very few astronomers supported heliocentrism due to problems that had not yet been worked out with it, such as the earth not seeming to move. After Galileo took observations of the orbits of Jupiter's moons he presented them to the top astronomer of the period, Tyco Brahe, who was not convinced of heliocentrism.

While many scientists are religious -- as you explained with the big-bang idea -- it is not religion that brings about scientific progress.  Simply because a scientist is Catholic does not mean the Catholic Church contributes to science.  Scientific progress is brought about through the collection of evidence, formulation of hypothesis, and testing of said hypothesis.  Scientific progress is decidedly non-religious. 

Also, I would not say Heliocentrism is a minor exception.  Regardless of the problems with the hypothesis at the time, the Church prohibited any consideration of Galileo's evidence as factual and thusly imprisoned him.  That is no fabrication by anti-theists, and that is no minor exception. 

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Creationism
« Reply #138 on: February 26, 2008, 12:23:41 AM »
Quote
The order isn't important because its an allegorical story.

The argument was over whether the story in the OT is false.  If the creation account is just an allegory with no basis in fact then it is false.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: al·le·gor·i·cal 
Pronunciation: \ˌa-lə-ˈgȯr-i-kəl, -ˈgär-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1528
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of allegory
2 : having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text
— al·le·gor·i·cal·ly  \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— al·le·gor·i·cal·ness  \-kəl-nəs\ noun
Based 100% in facts. God created the universe, God created humans, Genesis describes the relationship between God, humans, and the universe.

And just hold your Crusading horses.  None of those are facts. 

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Creationism
« Reply #139 on: February 26, 2008, 11:56:49 AM »
Quote
The order isn't important because its an allegorical story.

The argument was over whether the story in the OT is false.  If the creation account is just an allegory with no basis in fact then it is false.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: al·le·gor·i·cal 
Pronunciation: \ˌa-lə-ˈgȯr-i-kəl, -ˈgär-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1528
1 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of allegory
2 : having hidden spiritual meaning that transcends the literal sense of a sacred text
— al·le·gor·i·cal·ly  \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— al·le·gor·i·cal·ness  \-kəl-nəs\ noun
Based 100% in facts. God created the universe, God created humans, Genesis describes the relationship between God, humans, and the universe.

And just hold your Crusading horses.  None of those are facts. 

Lol, I love when people use dictionaries for fact. Its just so easy to destroy, easier than even wikipedia.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

Re: Creationism
« Reply #140 on: September 29, 2009, 06:55:36 PM »
So I should be mad, freaking out, frantic. Honestly, there were maybe two christians on here and both of them were the "you're going to burn in hell variety", but the only thought running in my head is "God is awesome".

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Creationism
« Reply #141 on: September 29, 2009, 07:03:09 PM »
So I should be mad, freaking out, frantic. Honestly, there were maybe two christians on here and both of them were the "you're going to burn in hell variety", but the only thought running in my head is "God is awesome".

Thank you for your insightful contribution to these forums.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Creationism
« Reply #142 on: September 29, 2009, 07:21:44 PM »
ha you're right i shouldn't have posted that, sorry. although, in my defense i wasn't the only one to deviate from the prescribed path.