The process by which everything that is, came to be

[Chris]

OK all, I rarely start off threads that have direct religious connotations, but the 'gay marriage' thread really is getting waaaay off topic. I'm having trouble wading through posts discussing Evolution, homosexual union, fascism and the definition of truth, reason and belief all in the same thread.

So, can I respectfully suggest that we move discussion of the theory of our origins over here - a lot of valid points and questions have been raised that deserve discussion with out distraction, I think. :)

[BBKing]

I originate from Suffolk. Is that what you meant?

OK, scientists please present your case in absolutist religious terms for the religionists, religionists present your case as scientific papers open to peer review. That'll stop it dead.

[philip.j.fry]

Well the great god arklesneeze... :D (sorry, had to be done)

[Xaccers]

Come on guys, behave! :D

Personally, I don't have that bit of the brain that you need to believe in religion, it just doesn't fit with me.
I follow the logic of physics and see how the science covers how the universe developed, and geneticists when it comes to how we are the way we are.
I don't know of any science that proclaims a god doesn't exists, although there's probably some on the fringe, science looks to discover the processes behind how things work.

Of course, they may look back far enough and prove that there is a suprime being (which I will of course ask "what made it?") but I will never see the need to worship such a being.

[Sociable]

Very sensible idea towny.

I will put my thinking cap on and participate just as soon as I can find two evolved brain cells willing to communicate with each other as sadly the only ones connecting so far today would be great for support the theory that "I" am the missing link.

[homealone]

as an intermediate theory of origin, one I like is the idea that as the elements comprising our bodies (Carbon, Calcium, Phosphorus, Iron etc) were derived from stars, ultimately in 'recent' time, anyway, we were 'born' in the stars.

[Chris]

I originate from Suffolk. Is that what you meant?

OK, scientists please present your case in absolutist religious terms for the religionists, religionists present your case as scientific papers open to peer review. That'll stop it dead.
:rofl:

ok ok ok ...

Thanks for your post in the other thread, I wanted to reply to it there but I didn't want to send it right off topic either. You talked a bit about semantics, which was very interesting. It set me thinking about something I discussed with someone once about faith and reason.

Often there is an assumption that you adhere to one and exclude the other. Those who have a faith are often charged with this. I don't think it is necessarily true. I hope my contributions to this forum have demonstrated that I am capable of reason - yet I have a faith. Conversely, the archetypal scientist sets reason on a pedestal and scorns the concept of faith.

Perhaps faulty definitions of both 'faith' and 'reason' are to blame for this. The use of 'faith' as an English word in this forum often suggests that the one using it defines it as 'that which cannot be proven empirically'. The Bible, on the other hand, defines faith as 'the very substance of that which is hoped for'.

For example, when I walk into a room for the first time I have no proof that the chair I find there will support my weight. In simply sitting down on it, I demonstrate faith that it will not collapse. At the same time, I prove empirically that it is indeed up to the job. Such faith is not blind. It is based on experience that chairs provided for people to sit on generally don't just collapse. Furthermore the very look of the chair might give subtle clues as to its suitability for sitting on. Reason is active alongside faith: Chairs are made for sitting on; this is a chair; it looks like it's safe to sit on; I will therefore have faith to sit on it without first acquiring empirical proof that this specific chair will not collapse under me.

Similarly, when a Christian puts his (or her) faith in God, it is not a blind acceptance of ancient words printed in a leather-backed book. Reason works along with it. In the first instance, seeing that there is more than a grain of truth in the Bible's assessment of the human condition begins to establish the Bible as a useful guide or source of information. I don't mean to give a blow-by-blow account of a typical 'walk of faith' leading from complete unbeliever to born-again Christian, I hope you have already caught the gist of what I'm driving at.

Suffice to say that by the time a man or woman has become a Christian and lived as one for a while, it becomes easier to accept something as truth based primarily on the testimony of the Bible, becasue the Bible becomes accepted as a trustworthy source.

Now that's not the end of it. On the specific point of Creation v Evolution, the Bible offers an historical narrative for how, it says, things came about. It is not intended as a treatese with scientific proof for its claims. The Bible rarely sets out to prove anything, even the existence of God himself. But I hope you begin to understand why some Christians accept it simply because it says so. Even in their case, I submit, they have not abandoned reason for blind faith, as they have employed their reason in reaching this very point in their Christian experience and hold that 'God has been truthful so far, I believe I can trust him in this too.'

As a final point, I ought to add that the 'Creation Science Movement' does move beyond proposing Special Creation on the basis that 'The Bible says it'. The movement has attempted to demonstarte how available geological and archaeological evidence can, without abandoning sound scientific principles, be made to demonstrate a young Earth just as it can an ancient Earth.

That's enough from me for the mo ... :)

[downquark1]

from other thread
And as I've said several times over, BRING ARGUMENTS to support your point, and ARGUMENTS to counter my points. However, you keep falling into this hole of attacking the author. The point is her scale doesn't work if racism and socialism are both on the left what exact IS right?

Second, I believe I've also quoted Hitler, a man who implemented Nazism, and I've also quoted the goals of Nazism.

Now bring some arguments to the table.
He persecuted the Jews - how can this be described 'liberal'. He persecuted communists - why would he if they were the same side?


Please clearly explain how you relate right-wing capitalism to evolution.

One is a theory to explain the origins of the universe, the other is an economic and social model of individual freedom.

They are not related.

Evolution is about the development of LIFE not the universe if you were to research it you would see it is very similar to your let the unemployed rot idealism
Please provide me with proof of this. I do not believe you.

Do you deny that children look like their parents now?
Originally Posted by downquark1
You are orthodox Christian, yet reject the unconditional love of Jesus Christ. Jesus met with criminals, outcasts, infidels and was never disrespectful to them, he was usually charitable. This does seems to contradict your opinions.
Please provide a citation where I said this.

I do believe I've said I should be allowed to have religion form my opinion. I never said the government and church should marry.
He said "adam and steve" as your argument - this is a religious reference.

Fascinating. Yes I'm aware some dictionaries love to apply right-wing to fascism and nazism, but please, bring ARGUMENTS TO THE TABLE.. I have supplied ample evidence. Just saying "because they said so" isn't enough. EXPLAIN to me how fascism is right-wing, and I guarantee you if you can do that, I'll change my mind.
I'm afraid I can't explain why blue means blue - it's just a word assigned to it. How you ever wondered why ayn Rand's theory isn't generally excepted?

[Sociable]

Ok for me the starting point is the realisation that final 100% proof of any idea is beyond the scope of anyone.

This leaves the option of developing a belief system based on a curious mix of scientific evidence and my own experience and observations.

My personal philosophy is based on the Socratic principles of asking questions and questioning answers but ultimately settling on those elements that are most convincing to me personally and accepting that anotherââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s truth is just as valid for them as mine is to me.

Do I believe in God?

Ok on this one my starting point is making a clear distinction between any belief in God and belief in the Church as, for me at least, this is a very important distinction.

So where does that leave me?

My life experience and observations of the world lead me to a personal conclusion that we are all bound together by some common thread.

Does this lead me to accept the notion of some supreme being responsible for the world the universe and everything? Well, so far, the answer to that question for me is NO.

So does this mean I accept the alternate view that the scientific explanations offer all the answers? Once again my answer, so far, is a definitive NO.

In true Socratic tradition I will continue to have an open mind on both questions and suspect I may well still be asking the very same questions until I myself reach my own natural conclusion.

Then at least I will have the answer I seek, either by there being nothing but nothing or by the promised afterlife presenting itself to me.

Either way I live my life based on the simple principles of mutual respect for my fellow travellers on the journey embodied in pretty well all religious persuasions.

This philosophy is perhaps best expressed in the following poem:

DESIDERATA

Go placidly amid the noise and haste and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull & ignorant; they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become bitter or vain, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass

Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be, and whatever your labours and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham drudgery and broken dreams it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful, strive to be happy.

(MAX EHRMANN)

[Stuart]

<snip>
Well, I was going to quote you Soc, and go through the post piece by piece commenting. However, I agree with all the points you raised, so no point commenting.


We should be free to believe in whatever makes us comfortable.

I tend to believe in Evolution (and despite what Jerrek appears to think, I actually expressed no belief in either Creation or Evolution in the marriage thread)., but that's basically because I have seen what I consider to be evidence of this,

I do not know what caused Evolution, but TBH people have spent centuries discussing that, so I doubt I'll ever have a conclusive answer.

Thinking about the Universe like this reminds me of an old Douglas Adams quote that I have used before (probably on here, and almost certainly on .com). I can never remember the exact words, but the general gist is that if we ever explain the Universe, it will promptly vanish and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. He also points out that this may already have happened.

[Russ]

:rofl:

For example, when I walk into a room for the first time I have no proof that the chair I find there will support my weight. In simply sitting down on it, I demonstrate faith that it will not collapse. At the same time, I prove empirically that it is indeed up to the job. Such faith is not blind. It is based on experience that chairs provided for people to sit on generally don't just collapse. Furthermore the very look of the chair might give subtle clues as to its suitability for sitting on. Reason is active alongside faith: Chairs are made for sitting on; this is a chair; it looks like it's safe to sit on; I will therefore have faith to sit on it without first acquiring empirical proof that this specific chair will not collapse under me.

Similarly, when a Christian puts his (or her) faith in God, it is not a blind acceptance of ancient words printed in a leather-backed book. Reason works along with it. In the first instance, seeing that there is more than a grain of truth in the Bible's assessment of the human condition begins to establish the Bible as a useful guide or source of information. I don't mean to give a blow-by-blow account of a typical 'walk of faith' leading from complete unbeliever to born-again Christian, I hope you have already caught the gist of what I'm driving at.


You know, I don't think I've ever seen it put so perfectly spot-on in my life. Of course, someone will obviously come along and try picking holes in it but well done anyway :)

[Sociable]

Thinking about the Universe like this reminds me of an old Douglas Adams quote that I have used before (probably on here, and almost certainly on .com). I can never remember the exact words, but the general gist is that if we ever explain the Universe, it will promptly vanish and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. He also points out that this may already have happened.

Actually the quote relates to God and the idea was along the lines that his/her existance was based of belief/faith therefore any proof of his exisitance would lead to him/her disappearing in a puff of logic.

The specific proof blamed for this was the existance of the fabled "Babel" fish I do believe.

That said I think the instalation of a babel fish translator would be a very useful addition to the forum at times. Not to cause God to disappear in a puff of logic, but simply so that each of us could instantly know what others meant by what they said rather than what we thought they meant to mean.

[danielf]

:rofl:

For example, when I walk into a room for the first time I have no proof that the chair I find there will support my weight. In simply sitting down on it, I demonstrate faith that it will not collapse. At the same time, I prove empirically that it is indeed up to the job. Such faith is not blind. It is based on experience that chairs provided for people to sit on generally don't just collapse. Furthermore the very look of the chair might give subtle clues as to its suitability for sitting on. Reason is active alongside faith: Chairs are made for sitting on; this is a chair; it looks like it's safe to sit on; I will therefore have faith to sit on it without first acquiring empirical proof that this specific chair will not collapse under me.

Similarly, when a Christian puts his (or her) faith in God, it is not a blind acceptance of ancient words printed in a leather-backed book. Reason works along with it. In the first instance, seeing that there is more than a grain of truth in the Bible's assessment of the human condition begins to establish the Bible as a useful guide or source of information. I don't mean to give a blow-by-blow account of a typical 'walk of faith' leading from complete unbeliever to born-again Christian, I hope you have already caught the gist of what I'm driving at.

Another term for your definition of faith is inductive reasoning. You observe a pattern in the outside world, and develop a theory (assumption) based upon that. This theory cannot be proven. This stands in contrast to deductive reasoning where you derive a prediction from a theory and test that empirically to see if the theory needs to be amended.

Science is a cycle of inductive and deductive reasoning, with theories largely being developed through (inherently flawed) inductive reasoning, but revised and/or refuted through deductive reasoning. The difference between science and faith lies in the second step, the use of deductive reasoning to refute the 'faith' arrived at through inductive reasoning.

[philip.j.fry]

You know, I don't think I've ever seen it put so perfectly spot-on in my life. Of course, someone will obviously come along and try picking holes in it but well done anyway :)

If anyone does try picking holes in it, just go get a philosophy textbook, look up the problem of induction and you'll get a huuuuuuge long list of reasons to counter the hole-picking :)

[danielf]

If anyone does try picking holes in it, just go get a philosophy textbook, look up the problem of induction and you'll get a huuuuuuge long list of reasons to counter the hole-picking :)

:D. They've had about 250 years to come up with reasons, and as far as I know, it still stands :)

[Graham]

Well the great god arklesneeze... :D (sorry, had to be done)

Ahem! (Or should that be "Achoo!"?)

ITYM the Great Green Arkleseizure whom, according to the Jatravartid people of Veltvodle 6, sneezed the entire universe out of his nose.

The Jatravartid people are small blue creatures with more than 50 arms and who are therefore unique in having invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel!

They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief"!

(And, yes, that *was* done entirely from memory!!)

[Xaccers]

Ahem! (Or should that be "Achoo!"?)

ITYM the Great Green Arkleseizure whom, according to the Jatravartid people of Veltvodle 6, sneezed the entire universe out of his nose.

The Jatravartid people are small blue creatures with more than 50 arms and who are therefore unique in having invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel!

They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief"!

(And, yes, that *was* done entirely from memory!!)

And people wonder why you're building a dungeon..... :D

[Graham]

Thinking about the Universe like this reminds me of an old Douglas Adams quote that I have used before (probably on here, and almost certainly on .com). I can never remember the exact words, but the general gist is that if we ever explain the Universe, it will promptly vanish and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. He also points out that this may already have happened.

"There is a theory which states that if anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."








"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."



Personally I prefer "Reason notwithstanding, the universe continued unabated".

:D:D:D

[Graham]

Actually the quote relates to God and the idea was along the lines that his/her existance was based of belief/faith therefore any proof of his exisitance would lead to him/her disappearing in a puff of logic.

The specific proof blamed for this was the existance of the fabled "Babel" fish I do believe.

Oh gods(! :) ), this is my thread for quoting sections of the HHGTTG!!

"Now it is so bizarrely improbable that the Babel fish could have evolved, that some thinkers have used it as the final, clinching proof for the non-existance of God. The argument goes like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing!

"But," says man, "the existance of the Babel Fish is so unlikely that it proves you exist and therefore you don't! QED!"

"Oh dear" says God "I hadn't thought of that!" and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was nothing" says man and, for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next Zebra Crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but it didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from using it as the central theme for his work "Well that about wraps it up for God!" :D

[Graham]

And people wonder why you're building a dungeon..... :D

:confused: Now if you'd have said "padded cell"...!! :D

[Sociable]

Many thanks Graham.

I was working from my much addled memory nice to see the full quote in all its glory.

[Graham]

Many thanks Graham.

I was working from my much addled memory nice to see the full quote in all its glory.

Actually I've just remembered that man says "But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?" Still not bad given that I haven't listened to the guide in an awful lot of years!

[BBKing]

available geological and archaeological evidence can, without abandoning sound scientific principles, be made to demonstrate a young Earth just as it can an ancient Earth

I have trouble with the 'made' in this - you should make your theory explain the facts, not make the facts fit the theory. What's the problem with having an ancient earth? It fits and explains a hell of a lot of geological evidence and as far as I can see, only has the minor drawback of annoying fundamentalists.

Dinosaurs:

Dinosaurs don't exist now (well, the big chaps don't). If they existed with Man at the same point in time, they must have died out while Man existed. Therefore some event or process must have wiped out the dinosaurs and left Man to carry on.

At this point the religionists will say 'Aha - what about a Flood as described in the Bible'. So we posit a flood that killed dinosaurs off. Since Man existed at the same time, and was sufficiently advanced to build arks, we would also expect there to be lots of dinosaur bones mixed up with the remains of the pre-Flood human civilisation and those sinful types not picked to go on the Ark. I look forward to being pointed towards this evidence.

[Jerrek]

I'll be back, but I just found this tidbit of news. Ohio is close to scrapping evolution from the education system: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1076495549160490.xml

Yes!

And, look at this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4241news3-11-2000.asp

A new nationwide poll has revealed that 79% of Americans believe that creation should be taught in its public schools. The results were released on Friday, March 10 by the liberal group People For the American Way, who commissioned the poll (reported in the New York Times, March 11).

Encouragingly, about half of the 1,500 respondents also believed that evolution "is far from being proven scientifically."

[Graham]

I'll be back, but I just found this tidbit of news. Ohio is close to scrapping evolution from the education system: Yes!

So you don't actually think that an "on the other hand" view should be taught? You don't want people to be able to make up their *own* minds, you just want the "One True Way" to be taught...?!

And, look at this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4241news3-11-2000.asp

Which also says: 'Another "flip-side" to the poll is that almost one half of Americans believed that while creation should be taught in public schools, it should be presented in non-science classes. In other words, creationism is not a scientific model and thus should be taught in a course like social studies rather than a science class.'

Encouragingly, about half of the 1,500 respondents also believed that evolution "is far from being proven scientifically."

Obviously they are ignorant of the fact that as has been pointed out several times, science doesn't *prove* theories.

PS it's also interesting to note the final comment from that site: "[...] believe in academic freedom, i.e., that a competing view to the dogma of evolution (creation) should be taught to young people."

The *dogma* of evolution? A scientific theory that is open to question by *anyone*? That, like any other scientific theory, can be and is continually reviewed, evaluated and tested?

And this is what they call "Dogma"?!?! :eek: :eek:

[Stuart]

Actually the quote relates to God and the idea was along the lines that his/her existance was based of belief/faith therefore any proof of his exisitance would lead to him/her disappearing in a puff of logic.

The specific proof blamed for this was the existance of the fabled "Babel" fish I do believe.

That said I think the instalation of a babel fish translator would be a very useful addition to the forum at times. Not to cause God to disappear in a puff of logic, but simply so that each of us could instantly know what others meant by what they said rather than what we thought they meant to mean.
I know the quote you are referring to. It was not the one I was thinking of. Graham has posted the corrected quote (I couldn't remember the words).

It is in the dedications at the front of (I think) Life, the Universe & Everything.

[Stuart]

I'll be back, but I just found this tidbit of news. Ohio is close to scrapping evolution from the education system: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1076495549160490.xml

Yes!

And, look at this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4241news3-11-2000.asp
So Ohio kids are getting a good balanced education then :rolleyes:

[Xaccers]

Encouragingly, about half of the 1,500 respondents also believed that evolution "is far from being proven scientifically."

So has creationism been proven scientifically then?

[BBKing]

I don't read this as Ohio being anywhere near scrapping evolution, so that's just wishful thinking there, Jerrek. I do wonder at an educational system that puts children's education in the hands of frankly incompetent people though.

Princehouse and other scientists complained that much of the language in the lesson plan came from Jonathan Wells' †œIcons of Evolution,ââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� a seminal text in the intelligent design movement. The boardââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s standards committee Monday deleted the title of the book from the lesson planââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s bibliography, but critics complained that Wellsââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ ideas remained.

I would humbly suggest that they employ peer-reviewed scientific papers as a basis for their science education. Or at least have the guts to say where the ideas come from. This is just pathetic. Here's a quote from the forward to the book:

In a surprising number of instances, however, the average person is probably as competent to make a judgment as the most highly trained scientist

Oh good, that's cleared that up, we don't need to educate scientists. In fact, reading that it seems the author *misses the point* again by saying that people present evolutionary hypothesis as fact. As I've repeatedly pointed out, it's a 'Theory of Evolution', not a proof. If you're going to take on scientific opinion at least take the trouble to learn the language.

All this only goes to show that, when comparing a religious belief with a scientific theory you're comparing apples with giraffes. All the linguistic points I raised earlier (proof, belief etc) are rather neatly encapsulated in this, along with the usual religious fundamentalist missing of the point.

I ask Jerrek this - what *should* be taught in science classes at school?


On a related but separate point:
Here in Europe we went through an age of Enlightenment in the 18th Century which led to a loss of faith in traditional religious and monarchic authority, and directly to the French and American revolutions. It seems that the modern USA is regressing rapidly back to before this period, which seems a shame. However, I believe that there are enough intelligent Americans to defend their Enlightenment freedoms against such idiotic religious bigotry.

[luftys]

as the borg say

if you can explain everything,wat is left to believe in

[BBKing]

Star Trek was always remarkably profound for popular science fiction (not a fan myself, but can appreciate that there's an intelligent idea behind it).

[sir_drinks_alot]

the process by which everything that is, comes to be
if that is the case than it's fate that i will find emma gray
and sort out the problem we have thus ending my nightmare

[Chris]

I have trouble with the 'made' in this - you should make your theory explain the facts, not make the facts fit the theory. What's the problem with having an ancient earth? It fits and explains a hell of a lot of geological evidence and as far as I can see, only has the minor drawback of annoying fundamentalists.

Dinosaurs:

Dinosaurs don't exist now (well, the big chaps don't). If they existed with Man at the same point in time, they must have died out while Man existed. Therefore some event or process must have wiped out the dinosaurs and left Man to carry on.

At this point the religionists will say 'Aha - what about a Flood as described in the Bible'. So we posit a flood that killed dinosaurs off. Since Man existed at the same time, and was sufficiently advanced to build arks, we would also expect there to be lots of dinosaur bones mixed up with the remains of the pre-Flood human civilisation and those sinful types not picked to go on the Ark. I look forward to being pointed towards this evidence.
Sorry to have been away from this thread for so long, we're decorating upstairs at home and my kit is in bits on our bedroom floor :(

BBKing, give me some time and I'll see if I can find the appropriate 'evidence' referenced online. I know from reading old-fashioned books on this subject that dinosaur footprints have been found in the same geological context as human ones - one footprint inside another on at least one occasion IIRC.

Meanwhile uniformitarian theory as proposed by Lyle (the notion that the current geological state of Earth must necessarily have occurred over vast swathes of time) is neatly undermined by observations of Mount St Helens, which erupted in the USA in the early 1980s and, in a period of just a few days, laid down material in ways absolutely identical to those observed elsewhere and ascribed a development timescale of millions of years.

These observations do not by themselves disprove current theories of the geological processes and timescales responsible for shaping our planet, but on the other hand they do demand a more cautious approach than that often taken by the 'professionals'.

About my use of the word 'made' - quite deliberately done. History is littered with examples of those who 'make' their evidence fit their theory. Of course this is not a responsible way to carry on. Of course, what I'm really driving at is to suggest that this is precisely what Darwinists do. Did you know that what is taught in Universities today is light years from what Charles Darwin first proposed? Every generation since Darwin has assembled a body of evidence in apparent support of his theories, only to see it eventually discredited. (The once popular notion that a human foetus goes through developmental stages akin to our animal ancestors is a classic example). It begins to look as if finding evidence to fit a pet theory is more important than establishing facts. :)

General point (not aimed at anyone in particular :) ): It never ceases to surprise me that, when discussing this subject, the Ancient Earth side of the argument is advanced as necessarily superior because it is not borne out of blind adherence to something as intangible as a religion. A scientist who has consciously rejected the notion that there is a spiritual dimension to existence that might have influenced the material universe is as closed-minded as those who want Creation and the Young Earth taught in school while excluding Evolution and the Ancient Earth (this is not something I could ever support).

The pertinent question to ask such a closed-minded person, whichever side of the argument they're on, is, 'what are you afraid of?'

@Graham: I don't believe it, you actually managed to get me to read this entire thread in the 'voice' of Peter Jones ... :D

[Graham]

@Graham: I don't believe it, you actually managed to get me to read this entire thread in the 'voice' of Peter Jones ... :D

Ah, but he has such a wonderful delivery! :)

I remember some years ago watching an edition of Horizon (before they went for the "Pure Science, Sheer Bull*****" approach and stretching 10 minutes of material to a full show) and thinking "Why the hell are these bells ringing in the back of my head?!?!" It took several minutes before I realised that it was because Peter Jones was doing the narration and in *exactly* the same way as he'd done HHGTTG!!

[BBKing]

Did you know that what is taught in Universities today is light years from what Charles Darwin first proposed?

Missing the point again - the point is that scientific theories change over time as new evidence and inspiration come in - the theory of the atom is a very good example, as it was taught to me for GCSE was different to when it was taught in sixth form and is different to that I read now in New Scientist - the theory is shaped to best fit the evidence which, in this field at least, is coming in all the time. It's less than 100 years since Rutherford determined, to his very great surprise, that atoms are nearly all empty space with some very very tiny dense objects in ('firing a 15 inch shell at a sheet of paper and watching it rebound'). This discovery really upset the scientific apple cart at the time, the result was that new theories had to be proposed to explain this observation plus the previous body of evidence. The observation wasn't discarded or twisted because it didn't fit the pet theory. Perhaps he was fortunate that the Bible doesn't have Moses' theory of atomic structure in it.

The important bit is that the evidence not be distorted and selected to support the theory. My problem with a lot of the religious arguments is that they take a view (understandably given the differing emotional trust put in God and man) that the biblical evidence is stronger than the empirical evidence (The Earth was made in 7 days, therefore any observations that contradict this must be weaker). This is unfortunate as it leads to the conclusion that empirical evidence directly contradicting biblical sources must be wrong, because it's from a less trustworthy source. Eventually something breaks, either the new discovery is stomped on heavily (the Catholic Church are your experts here) or the religion gives way. See Leclerc*, Copernicus and Galileo for details. Darwin's problem is that his work (which incidentally, like all good science, was inspiration mixed with observation added to an existing body of opinion, he certainly wasn't a lone nut).

Of course the same happens with scientific theories that are creaking under the strain of new evidence, science is full of imperfect individuals (hey, the world is), but most don't believe they have the might of God behind them (some believed they *were* God though). Few scientific feuds have led to persecution, torture and threats of execution, though.

Meanwhile uniformitarian theory as proposed by Lyle (the notion that the current geological state of Earth must necessarily have occurred over vast swathes of time) is neatly undermined by observations of Mount St Helens, which erupted in the USA in the early 1980s and, in a period of just a few days, laid down material in ways absolutely identical to those observed elsewhere and ascribed a development timescale of millions of years.

[looks up uniformitarian theory, read about that a couple of months back]

It's 'Lyell' by the way, and is a very old theory from the mid-19th century. Not sure how relevent it was in its original form by 1980, even though geologists tend to think more slowly than most. Paraphrasing my source (Bill Bryson's extremely good A Short History of Nearly Everything, which isn't going to be on Jerrek's reading list any time soon), he failed to explain how mountain ranges were created, what glaciers did and refused to accept ice ages. He didn't consider that mass extinctions happened and thought that animals had existed unchanged since the dawn of time. He was of course pre-Origin of Species (in fact Darwin had a copy of his book with him on his voyage, and was a friend, which may explain why Lyell is getting involved in religious arguments).

However, he was pretty much the first person to go for an exceptionally old age for the Earth, and had an enormous impact. His theory, being a scientific one, has been adapted and expanded to fit new evidence (mountains being the result of plate movements, the heat of the earth being due to radioactivity, the sun burning nuclear fuel and thus being able to sustain life for far, far longer, evidence of glaciers and ice ages making vast changes to the landscape in a short period of time, evidence of extra-terrestrial impacts). All of which has happened since the first half of the 19th century and is not undermined by a volcano blowing off in 1980 and frankly making bog all difference to the planet, although a certain amount of difference to a few thousand square miles of North America.

The ancient earth issue was actually the opposite way round, people realised quite early that the planet must be a lot older than the accepted young age to explain certain observations, but there was a crucial lack of evidence to stave off certain counter arguments. As these gaps have been filled in the age has actually been allowed to get greater and a lot of the paradoxes have vanished (like people from disciplines outside geology coming up with vastly greater ages to explain their own observations). The older the earth, the better the fit with the available evidence.

Most of the men (mainly men I'm afraid) who proposed these great ages were actually Christians, too, so by that definition not closed-minded to a spiritual dimension. They just thought that having a spiritual dimension didn't compel you to ignore the evidence in front of you (and they were *very* bright men, check out Lord Kelvin who got in a right twist about it).

What's wrong with professionals anyway? If you're going to be sceptical about scientific professionals be consistent and be equally sceptical of religious ones.

*proposed an age for the Earth of between 75,000 and 168,000 years in the 1770s, threatened with excommunication.

[homealone]

that post by BBKing demonstrated why it was a good idea to 'restart' this thread here. I find this whole 'old universe' , 'young universe' dialogue, extremely interesting.

I'm personally gutted that they are considering abandoning the Hubble telescope - too much evidence of 'old universe' ? ;)

towny's points are not being dismissed in that statement, but I was moved by this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3490657.stm

[Ramrod]

can I respectfully suggest that we move discussion of the theory of our origins over here - a lot of valid points and questions have been raised that deserve discussion with out distraction, I think. :)BBCi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3494543.stm)
New technologies may soon allow scientists to identify some of the genes of humankind's oldest ancestors.
This raises the possibility of plotting the evolutionary tree of humanity from five million years ago to the present.

[homealone]

BBCi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3494543.stm)

what is good - imo? is that it's only another point for discussion - not an "answer"?

[Graham]

Did you know that what is taught in Universities today is light years from what Charles Darwin first proposed?

Missing the point again - the point is that scientific theories change over time as new evidence and inspiration come in

Exactly! When Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was adopted, it was considered that this was a "smooth" process happening gradually over time ie "old" species being replaced by "newer" ones.

However the current theory is one of "punctured equilibrium", ie that it's possible for new species to develop and co-exist alongside the old ones, but then a "catastrophic event" happens which changes the odds such that only the "most fit" survive whilst other species get wiped out.

The theory is modified to fit the facts (as opposed to facts being modified to fit the theory as some wish to do!!)

[Chris]

<snip>as opposed to facts being modified to fit the theory as some wish to do!!)
Care to give some examples of this?

[BBKing]

OK, here's one from the link that Jerrek so kindly provided earlier.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp

Read that. Gosh, the adaption of bacteria to antibiotic-rich environments *disproves* evolution, as the resistance was there all along. Er, yes, of course it was, it evolved where there was a competitive advantage to be gained from it, along with the capability to share that resistance with other bacteria via plasmid transfer. Long before we thought of using antibiotics, they were being used by the microbes themselves, on each other, in the soil, where there is a colossal amount of competition and microbes have actually been producing antibiotics to gain a competitive advantage (by killing off their competitors) for millions of years.

Naturally, there being naturally occuring antibiotics present means that there is a competitive advantage in having resistance evolve, which is where the plasmids come in. When humans started using antibiotics inside themselves, this selection pressure was applied to the hitherto antibiotic-free populations of human-resident bacteria, who were more worried about the body's immune system. Because plasmids can transfer between species, it doesn't take very long for the resistence to spread throughout the human-resident bacteria, including the dangerous pathogens that we were trying to kill. Note that this is not evolution at all, despite the article suggesting that resistence is spread by multiplication, it is spread by plasmid transfer too. Thus trying to demolish it as an example of evolution is a straw man argument.

The other missing bit of information concerns the amount of information
in the environment, and again evolution is there waiting for the argument. The reason resistence isn't found pre-existing in human bacteria is because maintaining that capability costs resources. If there are no antibiotics, but there is an immune system, to have a biological weapon to negate antibiotics is a fatal waste of resources. Bacteria that don't produce it have an advantage, as they need fewer resources to reproduce. Thus the bacteria with that now useless weapon will decommission it or die.

The amount of information thus doesn't have to grow for evolution to work, in fact this is a good example of exactly the opposite happening, information is lost for competitive advantage.

In other words, for every feature which arises by evolution, there would need to be new genetic information added to the total information in the biosphere

This quote is a clear twisting of evolutionary theory, which is perfectly capable of accepting the loss of information if it confers a competitive advantage. And the scientific explanation for antibiotic resistance doesn't involve evolution anyway, so linking it in is also a twisting.

Link for very interesting bacterial resistance explanation, well worth reading in conjunction with the above link.

http://www.lsic.ucla.edu/classes/mimg/robinson/micro12/m12webnotes/Emerginginfections/m12bacterialevolution.htm

[homealone]

OK, here's one from the link that Jerrek so kindly provided earlier.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp

Read that. Gosh, the adaption of bacteria to antibiotic-rich environments *disproves* evolution, as the resistance was there all along. Er, yes, of course it was, it evolved where there was a competitive advantage to be gained from it, along with the capability to share that resistance with other bacteria via plasmid transfer. Long before we thought of using antibiotics, they were being used by the microbes themselves, on each other, in the soil, where there is a colossal amount of competition and microbes have actually been producing antibiotics to gain a competitive advantage (by killing off their competitors) for millions of years.

Naturally, there being naturally occuring antibiotics present means that there is a competitive advantage in having resistance evolve, which is where the plasmids come in. When humans started using antibiotics inside themselves, this selection pressure was applied to the hitherto antibiotic-free populations of human-resident bacteria, who were more worried about the body's immune system. Because plasmids can transfer between species, it doesn't take very long for the resistence to spread throughout the human-resident bacteria, including the dangerous pathogens that we were trying to kill. Note that this is not evolution at all, despite the article suggesting that resistence is spread by multiplication, it is spread by plasmid transfer too. Thus trying to demolish it as an example of evolution is a straw man argument.

The other missing bit of information concerns the amount of information
in the environment, and again evolution is there waiting for the argument. The reason resistence isn't found pre-existing in human bacteria is because maintaining that capability costs resources. If there are no antibiotics, but there is an immune system, to have a biological weapon to negate antibiotics is a fatal waste of resources. Bacteria that don't produce it have an advantage, as they need fewer resources to reproduce. Thus the bacteria with that now useless weapon will decommission it or die.

The amount of information thus doesn't have to grow for evolution to work, in fact this is a good example of exactly the opposite happening, information is lost for competitive advantage.



This quote is a clear twisting of evolutionary theory, which is perfectly capable of accepting the loss of information if it confers a competitive advantage. And the scientific explanation for antibiotic resistance doesn't involve evolution anyway, so linking it in is also a twisting.

Link for very interesting bacterial resistance explanation, well worth reading in conjunction with the above link.

http://www.lsic.ucla.edu/classes/mimg/robinson/micro12/m12webnotes/Emerginginfections/m12bacterialevolution.htm

no apologies for quoting the entire post ;)

I'd just like to point out that 'officially' - bacteria are plants, so while the points made are fascinating, they may not apply to human evolution?

However speculation that mitochondria are a successful 'symbiosis' between 'plants' and ''animals' may apply?

[BBKing]

Um - in the case of evolution in general humans aren't as important as we think we are, just because we can make microscopes. There are as many microbes in a gram of soil as there are humans on the planet, there are as many foreign cells inside and on you as there are of yours, hence if you start studying microbes you are really studying the vast majority of life on earth. They've been around longer too.

Where are bacteria officially plants? Taxonomists have got a bit beyond animal, vegetable, mineral these days.

And symbiotic behaviour is extremely interesting, it's one theory behind why multi-cellular organisms evolved.

[Jon M]

bbking. I suggest you email the author of that answersingenesis article if you have anything to counter what is said, I know you'll get an answer (i'm not sure how quickly though) because ironically (after reading a few posts in this thread) my dad works for them.. lol

For the record, my personal stance is that I'm a creationist, believing the earth to be young (less than 20,000 years). I think creationism is as scientific as evolution in the sense that both theories are belief systems based on that which cannot be ultimately proven scientifically because none of us was alive when the universe was formed therefore, we have no first hand evidence.

[homealone]

Um - in the case of evolution in general humans aren't as important as we think we are, just because we can make microscopes. There are as many microbes in a gram of soil as there are humans on the planet, there are as many foreign cells inside and on you as there are of yours, hence if you start studying microbes you are really studying the vast majority of life on earth. They've been around longer too.

Where are bacteria officially plants? Taxonomists have got a bit beyond animal, vegetable, mineral these days.

And symbiotic behaviour is extremely interesting, it's one theory behind why multi-cellular organisms evolved.

ah the pitfalls over oversimplification - I meant 'plants' merely in the context of not 'animals'. IIRC bacteria are prokaryotes.

I agree the symbiosis issue is fascinating.:)

[danielf]

bbking.
For the record, my personal stance is that I'm a creationist, believing the earth to be young (less than 20,000 years). I think creationism is as scientific as evolution in the sense that both theories are belief systems based on that which cannot be ultimately proven scientifically because none of us was alive when the universe was formed therefore, we have no first hand evidence.

I would like to refer to an earlier post of mine (number 13). Yes, both are belief systems, but Science proceeds because the theories make (strong) predictions which are tested against the empirical evidence. The outcome is then used to revise/refute the theory. I don't see creationism making the strong predictions required to do this.

This principle of falsifiability is central to the the scientific method. Though I should admit that is was only about 70 years ago that Karl Popper came up with the idea, which goes to show that even the scientific method is something that 'evolves' over the years.

But, as far as I can see, creationism is not falsifiable, and therefore does not qualify as a 'good' scientific theory.

Edit: I would even go so far as to say that because creationism can explain anything, it would be considered a very poor theory in scientific terms.

[Russ]

The thing is, by it's very nature, science keeps (pardon the pun) evolving, constantly trying to search for new answers, new descoveries etc. Creationism doesn't work that way - it doesn't need to as it's not there to be proven.

I'm not naive, if we looked at evolution vs. creationism in the style of a criminal court case, the unanimous verdict from the jury would be in favour of evolution. However it's worth remembering that what creationism is part of (ie religion) does not require proof, only 'faith'. The two theories each have a different end requirement, IMO this is why they can't be compared.

[Xaccers]

The thing is, by it's very nature, science keeps (pardon the pun) evolving, constantly trying to search for new answers, new descoveries etc. Creationism doesn't work that way - it doesn't need to as it's not there to be proven.

I'm not naive, if we looked at evolution vs. creationism in the style of a criminal court case, the unanimous verdict from the jury would be in favour of evolution. However it's worth remembering that what creationism is part of (ie religion) does not require proof, only 'faith'. The two theories each have a different end requirement, IMO this is why they can't be compared.

Why does it not need proof? Why does religion not need proof?
I've heard that said many times, but no explaination backing it up has been given.

[danielf]

The thing is, by it's very nature, science keeps (pardon the pun) evolving, constantly trying to search for new answers, new descoveries etc. Creationism doesn't work that way - it doesn't need to as it's not there to be proven.

I'm not naive, if we looked at evolution vs. creationism in the style of a criminal court case, the unanimous verdict from the jury would be in favour of evolution. However it's worth remembering that what creationism is part of (ie religion) does not require proof, only 'faith'. The two theories each have a different end requirement, IMO this is why they can't be compared.

That's fine by me, but people *are* comparing the two, and saying that science is a belief system as well. My point is that, to a certain extent that is true, but its additional characteristics (falsifiability, deductive reasoning), make it better as a truth/knowledge finding mechanism.

I realise that the use of the word truth is probably a little strong as every scientific theory is by definition a (working) hypothesis, but I think you get the point.

[Russ]

It depends who it's aimed at. For a believer in Christ, proof is not a requirement. To cut a looooong story short, God rewards us with Heaven for having the patience to live on 'faith' in Him, and belief in Him. God is not something we can touch, not something which can be proven to exists using mathematic formulae, but we have faith in Him being there. Some of us do get signs from Him, but when we are in faith, we don't feel the need to run around saying to each other "There, you see? That PROVES He's there".

[Xaccers]

It depends who it's aimed at. For a believer in Christ, proof is not a requirement. To cut a looooong story short, God rewards us with Heaven for having the patience to live on 'faith' in Him, and belief in Him. God is not something we can touch, not something which can be proven to exists using mathematic formulae, but we have faith in Him being there. Some of us do get signs from Him, but when we are in faith, we don't feel the need to run around saying to each other "There, you see? That PROVES He's there".

But believing in god is one thing, but putting creationism forward as fact without proof is another.

[Russ]

But believing in god is one thing, but putting creationism forward as fact without proof is another.

I suggest you take that up with people do that! My choice is to choose creationism. It feel more comfortable to me and makes more sense.

[Xaccers]

I suggest you take that up with people do that! My choice is to choose creationism. It feel more comfortable to me and makes more sense.

So do you just ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism?

[Sociable]

Why does it not need proof? Why does religion not need proof?
I've heard that said many times, but no explaination backing it up has been given.

Because the fundamental "idea" at its core is not a scientific principle, but simply a belief system that helps and guides those that follow it to live their life in a way that works for them personally.

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of god and all the faith in the world will not turn water into wine any more than the early "scientists" could change lead into gold. This is not to deny the possibility of miracles but simply to make the point that the faithful will believe and those that donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t wont. Each from their own perspective will be 100% correct.

Faith allows people to drink water but perceive that to be wine. For them the water is wine. Whether or not it is actually wine from a scientific perspective matters not. Even those like me that don't have such faith can see how this can be demonstrated very simply.

Have you ever been at a party and found yourself full of party spirit but not having had a drop of spirit at all? In such situations drinking water will be like drinking wine.

A clumsy example I know but in essence it sums up for me both part of the reason for religion and the positive benefit it can bring to those having true faith. We are complex beings with an inherent need to find answers to the "big" questions. Both science and, at least for me personally, religion still fall short of providing all the answers to all those "big" questions.

Science helps me understand the physical world and †œhowâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� it works and what I know of religion and the various philosophical approaches to the reasons for it all helps me to understand the world and mankindââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s place in it from the †œWhyâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� perspective. The two combined are what help me to live my life in a way that works for me and so to some degree both will always play a part.

[Stuart]

So do you just ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism?
I think (in fact I know) Russ' point is that for his purposes, he does not need evidence. That is Russ' choice, just as it is mine (and yours) to go for what we have evidence of (ie Evolution).

[Xaccers]

I'm just intreagued what people of faith do when they come across evidence which contradicts their beliefs...

[Chris]

I'm just intreagued what people of faith do when they come across evidence which contradicts their beliefs...
The core of my belief is that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead so that I could live forever with him. No-one has ever yet produced evidence that this is not so (attempts at rational explanations are not evidence).

As a matter of fact, as others have pointed out often in this forum, it's incredibly difficult to prove a negative. I believe that miracles happen. I can even say I've witnessed one or two. Sceptics may offer rational explanations but it's not possible to prove there's no such thing. This is because the ultimate explanation I hold to exists in a 'place' which is impossible to reach by scientific method - a spiritual dimension.

(Danielf appears to be suggesting that Creationism is not a good scientific theory because it can't finally be proven incorrect. But surely the same argument must be simultaneously levelled at Evolution/Ancient Earth theory? Never mind the fact that one is a far more popular theory than the other, they both attemt to explain the same thing and they both claim the support of the available evidence. If one is reckoned to be unfalsifiable, then so must the other.)

However I think it is very important to distinguish between what makes a good scientific theory and what might actually be true or false. It would be silly to suggest that something cannot possibly be true just because it is not possible to prove it false.

[Xaccers]

The core of my belief is that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead so that I could live forever with him. No-one has ever yet produced evidence that this is not so (attempts at rational explanations are not evidence).


Gotcha, so even if it was proven that, for instance, the story of moses was totally wrong, it wouldn't affect the part that said that jesus died for your sins, and so wouldn't make much difference, you'd just acknowledge that what you thought the story of moses was, was actually incorrect, and move on.
But if someone was able to prove that jesus didn't die (yes I know there are theories, and a lot of evidence that he didn't and spent the rest of his days living in kashmir but that's not been totally proven to be jesus, yet) then you'd have a spot of bother.

[danielf]

(Danielf appears to be suggesting that Creationism is not a good scientific theory because it can't finally be proven incorrect. But surely the same argument must be simultaneously levelled at Evolution/Ancient Earth theory? Never mind the fact that one is a far more popular theory than the other, they both attemt to explain the same thing and they both claim the support of the available evidence. If one is reckoned to be unfalsifiable, then so must the other.)

However I think it is very important to distinguish between what makes a good scientific theory and what might actually be true or false. It would be silly to suggest that something cannot possibly be true just because it is not possible to prove it false.

The fact that two theories attempt to explain the same phenomenon does not mean that if one is not falsifiable the other is as well. Whether or not a theory is falsifiable depends on the (strong) predictions it makes (e.g. the missing link). Falsifiability is a characteristic of the theory, not of the phenomenon. But you're right, Evolution must (and is) measured against the same yard stick.

Regarding your second statement, every scientific theory is bound to be false at some level of detail. It is finding out where it is false that is crucial to science. If you can't prove a theory false, it is not specified precisely enough, and therefore of limited use in Science.

So, in this respect, I suppose I'm not a great believer in absolute truth, except perhaps in formal system like mathematics.

[Chris]

Gotcha, so even if it was proven that, for instance, the story of moses was totally wrong, it wouldn't affect the part that said that jesus died for your sins, and so wouldn't make much difference, you'd just acknowledge that what you thought the story of moses was, was actually incorrect, and move on.
But if someone was able to prove that jesus didn't die (yes I know there are theories, and a lot of evidence that he didn't and spent the rest of his days living in kashmir but that's not been totally proven to be jesus, yet) then you'd have a spot of bother.
For the record I believe that Moses actually 'happened', but the true importance of that part of the Bible today is as an aid to teaching God's faithfulness and ability to provide for his people. Proving that to be a story rather than historical fact would not destroy my personal faith, or the foundations of it, which as I said are Jesus Christ, crucified for me.

However, if Christ crucified - and risen again - were proven not to have happened, then yes, goodnight Vienna. You will understand that I am quite confident this will never happen ... the foremost sceptics of the human race have been trying for centuries and they've not managed it yet. :D

Got me, how? :confused: :)

[Xaccers]

For the record I believe that Moses actually 'happened', but the true importance of that part of the Bible today is as an aid to teaching God's faithfulness and ability to provide for his people. Proving that to be a story rather than historical fact would not destroy my personal faith, or the foundations of it, which as I said are Jesus Christ, crucified for me.

However, if Christ crucified - and risen again - were proven not to have happened, then yes, goodnight Vienna. You will understand that I am quite confident this will never happen ... the foremost sceptics of the human race have been trying for centuries and they've not managed it yet. :D

Got me, how? :confused: :)

Gotcha as in "I understand what you mean" :D

[Chris]

Gotcha as in "I understand what you mean" :D
Aahhh ... I thought I was falling into a devious intellectual trap for a second :D

[Russ]

So do you just ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism?

Just because one person considers it evidence does not mean I would. I would just question it's validity, not that I spend much time worrying about it.

[Xaccers]

Aahhh ... I thought I was falling into a devious intellectual trap for a second :D

Aw thank you for considering me an intellectual :D

But you know me, I try not to set traps

And thankyou for your straight answer ("goodnight vienna")

[Xaccers]

Just because one person considers it evidence does not mean I would. I would just question it's validity, not that I spend much time worrying about it.

What if in questioning it's validity, you found that it was valid evidence?

[Russ]

What if in questioning it's validity, you found that it was valid evidence?

Ohh I dunno, I'd throw Christianity out of the window and pick a passing cult :D

[Xaccers]

Ohh I dunno, I'd throw Christianity out of the window and pick a passing cult :D

:rofl:

[Sociable]

The problem with some of the arguments put forward is that many forget the meaning of the word bible.

It is a "library" with many different sections or books. Some are meant to be historic records others are more in tune with myths and legends inevitably amended and changed in detail over time and therefore accuracy.

It is the central message that holds true not the specific "facts". Above all even the "historic" sections are being told from the writers own unique perspective based on a combination of personal experience and anecdotal evidence.

If you want a more recent example of this consider the stories of King Arthur and also Robin Hood. The importance of both is not in the detailed proof even of their very existence but in the inspiration the stories about them gives.

[Chris]

What if in questioning it's validity, you found that it was valid evidence?
It's a perfectly reasonable question, but many people who ask it don't consider that a great many Christians - most especially those who were not brought up in a family of faith, but have had to start from scratch - have already thought these things through and are Christians precisely because their considered judgement is that it does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Chris]

The problem with some of the arguments put forward is that many forget the meaning of the word bible.

It is a "library" with many different sections or books. Some are meant to be historic records others are more in tune with myths and legends inevitably amended and changed in detail over time and therefore accuracy.

It is the central message that holds true not the specific "facts". Above all even the "historic" sections are being told from the writers own unique perspective based on a combination of personal experience and anecdotal evidence.

If you want a more recent example of this consider the stories of King Arthur and also Robin Hood. The importance of both is not in the detailed proof even of their very existence but in the inspiration the stories about them gives.
It's very true that inspiration is important, but I'm always wary when that explanation is offered as a cop-out from trying to understand whether it's important that something actually happened or not.

For example, the Hebrew literary style of Genesis chapter one is historical, not poetic. It is a violation of the rules of translation to ascribe an allegorical or poetic origin to the creation story as written down, because Hebrew literary style is extremely rigid. If it's not written in the recognised allegorical style, then the author did not intend it to be understood in that way. The author of Genesis chapter one intended the creation story to be understood literally.

I don't consider that King Arthur and Robin Hood can be equated with the characters depicted in the Bible. Their significance is on a wholly different level. Old Testament scribes revered the scriptures so highly that they went off for a ritual bath before even writing YHWH, the name of God, and used a rigorous system of checksums to ensure there were no copying errors in each line of a new scroll. If a single error was found, the whole lot was destroyed. Scrolls found in caves at Qumran (the 'Dead Sea Scrolls') deomnstrate that no significant copying errors have occurred over two millennia. That being the case, it flies in the face of the available evidence to suggest there were significant errors in the 2,000 years prior to that.

Arthur and Robin, on the other hand, have enjoyed varying levels of political significance down the ages but were never considered of such vital importance that the same fidelity was demanded in the re-telling of their stories.

[Jon M]

It is a "library" with many different sections or books. Some are meant to be historic records others are more in tune with myths and legends inevitably amended and changed in detail over time and therefore accuracy.

It is the central message that holds true not the specific "facts". Above all even the "historic" sections are being told from the writers own unique perspective based on a combination of personal experience and anecdotal evidence.
The danger for a christian who takes that point of view is that once you take away the infallibility of the Bible, the whole thing comes into question.
You can then pick and choose the parts you deem literal or legend/myth and end up with a set of beliefs that bear little, if any, resemblence to the Bible in it's entirity.

Personally, I am convinced that the Bible is the literal word of God. Written by men, but under the direct leadership of God.
2 TIMOTHY 3:16 " All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
Some parts of the Bible (eg: Revelation) are pictorial in their description.. but when taken in context I don't believe there is any inconsistency whatsoever.

Bear in mind too, that the Bible is universally acknowledged to be THE most historically accurate, well preserved and co-oberrated (sp?) document of all time.

[ZrByte]

Bear in mind too, that the Bible is universally acknowledged to be THE most historically accurate, well preserved and co-oberrated (sp?) document of all time.

By Christians ;)

[Russ]

And Catholics :)

[Chris]

By Christians ;)
and a great deal of others, actually ;)

[SMHarman]

Actually the quote relates to God and the idea was along the lines that his/her existance was based of belief/faith therefore any proof of his exisitance would lead to him/her disappearing in a puff of logic.

The specific proof blamed for this was the existance of the fabled "Babel" fish I do believe.

That said I think the instalation of a babel fish translator would be a very useful addition to the forum at times. Not to cause God to disappear in a puff of logic, but simply so that each of us could instantly know what others meant by what they said rather than what we thought they meant to mean.

Probably already posted by now but...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A263963

Babel Fish
The Babel fish is small yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the unconscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them.

The practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "Ihadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is whte and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best selling book 'Well That About Wraps It Up For God'.

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different race and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

Taken from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", Copyright Douglas Adams 1979 - 2000.

[Sociable]

Snip.
Bear in mind too, that the Bible is universally acknowledged to be THE most historically accurate, well preserved and co-oberrated (sp?) document of all time.

In essence I'm agreeing with what you say just pointing out that each person interprets the bible differently with even theologians within the same church themselves at times taking different views of what is history and what is a story told to get across an idea rather than a fact.

This for me is why I have a problem with organised religion that insists that every single word is pure fact and the non religious that insist the whole thing is pure fiction.

Instead I believe the answer lies somewhere between the two and at times uses a degree of poetic licence to tell a story that can help guide people to live a "good" life regardless of where on that sliding scale of belief they stand.

For me at least this does not detract from its value as a learning tool and in fact increases it as it allows me to personalise the messages in a way that leaves choices.

If I am only nice because the bible says that's the way to go then I see that as meaning less than if I hear the stories and from that make a decision I want to be nice. This choice does not rely on the story being fact or fiction but simply that its message connects with me as an individual.

[Jon M]

<snip>
The thing is, the claims Jesus made about himself make that stance logically impossible. He was either lying and a fraud or He was telling the truth and therefore was God.

Why would you want to accept or follow teachings from someone who in the same breath you say is not who he claims to be?

The Bible isn't some sort of moralist menu where you can take all your favourite dishes.
"If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city" (Rev. 22:19).
Fairly plain talking there isn't it.

I'm not denying that many christians fall short at this hurdle, and I'm not judging them as they have as much right to those opinions as I do in writing this.. but given the plain teaching of the Bible in exclusivity, and totality I don't see how just absorbing all the nice things can provide a basis for life.
I need something concrete, solid.. absolutes.

Maybe thats just the sort of person I am.. but the stakes are high when you're talking life and death ;)

[SMHarman]

Snip.
Bear in mind too, that the Bible is universally acknowledged to be THE most historically accurate, well preserved and co-oberrated (sp?) document of all time.

Reading the wonderful Eats, Shoots and Leaves at the moment. While the good book might be all that, it was also written in a time without punctuation. As such many paragraphs in it can have multiple meanings depending on where the commas and full stops are put.

[Sociable]

Why would you want to accept or follow teachings from someone who in the same breath you say is not who he claims to be?


Well as I'm not holding an opinion on that either way the issue does not arrise for me.

This doesn't stop me reading about a person who may or may not have actually existed and drawing inspiration from that about how to conduct my life. (In all its aspects not just the "nice" bit which I used as a simple example.)

I also draw similar inspiration from others I read about or meet in real life and try to let my whole life experience be a part of who I am and how I live.

A good idea is valid regardless of if the person holding it is who they say they are or not. For some being able to accept the idea may be easier if they percieve or believe he is the son of god but for me that is not a requirement.

To focus on the man rather than the idea simply clouds an otherwise extremely simple message.

Being an agnositic has its advantages too as I tend not to throw as many babies out with the bathwater as those holding more concrete views one way or the other have a tendancy to do.