 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
aranaea
Sea Monkey
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: Why trust Genesis? |
 |
|
I go by a rule that I think is pretty reasonable. If I get information from somewhere and some part of that information turns out to be false the credibility of the entire source is thrown into question. That doesn't mean that I reject everything that source tells me but I'll think harder about it before using that information as fact. If I find more information from that source to be false then there's a steady decline in trust until eventually I don't use it anymore. I think this is the way most people operate, which is why the phrase "did you get that from wikipedia" is now so derisive.
As I read Genesis I run into a problem with the first 2 chapters. I think the first issue I noticed was in Gen 1:6-8.
| Quote: |
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.
|
I read this to mean that in the beginning all the space occupied by the earth was water and the expanse was created between 2 layers of water giving room for the creation of land, animals, humans, etc. Some translations have "firmament", or "dome" but I get essentially the same reading from this.
So the first strike, to me, is that there isn't much water out there above the sky. In fact, it's really hard to find water out there. It seems the only way to salvage this is to get creative with the interpretation or to decide that there is water out there, just like it says, and NASA is trying to trick you. I don't find either of those options appealing.
Moving on to the second chapter I find that Genesis doesn’t agree with itself. The timeline for creation is completely different from the first chapter. Rather than creating plants, animals, and then humans God creates man, then all the other animals, then woman. In the first chapter God creates them in “our image” simultaneously through decree but uses a much more manual process in the second chapter creating woman only after failing to find a suitable companion for man in all the other creatures. The first chapter seems to leave women on a fairly even footing with men while the second chapter makes it clear that they're here for man's companionship and are not equal.
I realize (thanks FFT) that according to biblical historians these 2 chapters were written by different authors at different times and compiled later into the canon of the Hebrew bible, which explains why the 2 chapters don't line up. But I'm still left with the question of why should I take any of the information in these chapters seriously? What do I get out of thinking that the earth was created in 7 days or any of the other claims? All that I can see coming from that is argument with people who claim to have evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old and formed from cosmic dust over a billion years or so.
So, aside from faith, is there any reason to trust what comes in the first couple chapters of Genesis? Shouldn't everything be looked at critically given the controversy it causes and lack of correlation to itself and observable evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
We must realize a couple of things about these two passages, 1) they are not "all inclusive", they dont lay everything out but rather are outlines 2) neither of these passages are scientific documents, we cannot come to any scientific conclusions based upon what they say. Religious conclusions yes but not scientific conclusions.
So going back to them we can see they contain differing accounts and that may be from the perspective of the author. One account explains things in a series of included remarks and the second lists things another series of remarks are they mutualy exclusive? NO. There was never any intent to be precise in the order of things.
Next the conditions pre Noah's flood would of necessity be different than things are today. (I hold to the canopy theory by the way.) So who can know for sure about the waters above? They're not there anymore so what?
{FFT's theory about different authors is suspect in many experts eyes so dont depend upon this being true just because it look like it.}
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sgs 8:7 Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if [a] man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.
Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great wh*re that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the wh*re sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Eze 20:49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aranaea wrote: | | I think this is the way most people operate, which is why the phrase "did you get that from wikipedia" is now so derisive. |
Perhaps, but in my experience people who say that never used wikipedia in the first place.
| dim12trav wrote: | | {FFT's theory about different authors is suspect in many experts eyes so dont depend upon this being true just because it look like it.} |
In place of "many experts" read "fundamentalists'." There is no non-ideological reason I'm aware of not to accept the documentary hypothesis.
And it's hardly my theory, it got its start in the 18th century and at this point is the mainstream consensus. "Documentary hypothesis" typically doesn't even refer to just one set, it's typically used to refer to any set of explanations of the Bible involving multi-author composition. In fact, as analysis methods get more accurate, the Pentateuch isn't appearing to have fewer than the four authors hypothesized, but more authors writing more recently.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aranaea
Sea Monkey
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dim12trav wrote: | 1) they are not "all inclusive", they don't lay everything out but rather are outlines
...
Next the conditions pre Noah's flood would of necessity be different than things are today. (I hold to the canopy theory by the way.) So who can know for sure about the waters above? They're not there anymore so what?
|
I don't mean to be implying that they don't cover something they should. I'm not asking why it doesn't talk about dinosaurs or anything. Just focusing on what's covered in the documents themselves.
I think you're implying that the waters above went somewhere, like maybe onto the land in Noah's flood. Leaving aside any physical reasons for doubting that there seems to be little biblical reason to think that as well.
| Gen 8:2 wrote: |
Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
|
Maybe I'm reading too much into that passage but it sounds like the floodgates of heaven had to be closed to stop the rain.
| dim12trav wrote: |
2) neither of these passages are scientific documents, we cannot come to any scientific conclusionsbased upon what they say. Religious conclusions yes but not scientific conclusions.
|
So by scientific conclusions you mean we can't learn anything about the physical world? What religious conclusions do you draw from it? I don't mean that to sound snarky but that's really what's at the heart of my original question. What lesson can be taken, and trusted, from this portion of Genesis? I had assumed it was intended to describe the creation of the earth and of man and therefore could be used to draw conclusions about the physical world.
| dim12trav wrote: |
One account explains things in a series of included remarks and the second lists things another series of remarks are they mutualy exclusive? NO.
|
I'm not sure that I see how they can be completely different, both authoritative, and not mutually exclusive. I don't think I'm able to follow your reasoning. It does not appear to be that the second chapter clarifies the first chapter, it contradicts it. So do I discard one? Do I assume that it doesn't say what it clearly says?
| dim12trav wrote: |
There was never any intent to be precise in the order of things.
|
I'm surprised that you would assert to know the intent. We don't have any of the original documents from the bible, much less any sort of notes from the original authors describing why these books were written.
I think that it's important for people of faith to find ways around some of these inconsistencies and the claims of parables and the ability to read outside of the text seem to be ways for them to do that.
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply dim12trav |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aranaea
Sea Monkey
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: |
...
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
...
|
Is the entire bible in parable then? How do you interpret the parables in these passages of Genesis? Does the lack of clarity affect (or should it affect) the voracity of the creation side of the evolution/creation debate?
Thank you lone-traveler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well so much is made of the order to things there in Genesis, which seems to be the source of your contradictions. I dont accept that the order is necesary at all.
AS to what is meant by scientific conclusions. Well using mathematics one can clearly tell truth from fiction since the arithmatics just doesn't add up, there is a precision about it that crowds out doubts.
Whereas Religious documents will frequently be paradoxical in nature, and the truth is ascertained in quite different means than adding numbers.
Regarding the canopy theory, which cannot ever be proven, isn't it possible to just suspend disbelief for a while?
aranaea wrote: | Quote: | So by scientific conclusions you mean we can't learn anything about the physical world? What religious conclusions do you draw from it? I don't mean that to sound snarky but that's really what's at the heart of my original question. What lesson can be taken, and trusted, from this portion of Genesis? I had assumed it was intended to describe the creation of the earth and of man and therefore could be used to draw conclusions about the physical world.
|
Well, not exactly. One doesn't go to church for scientific details one goes to science for that. Throughout the Bible there are correct geographic details but I still wouldn't go to the Bible for a detailed geography of the ancient near east. What is written about to the limited extent it is written about, is correct.
Based upon what I know of Genesis and Evolution they are not mutually exclusive. Vast periods of time are skipped over to shorten the Genesis story and for someone to think they could gather scientific details from it, is wrong. Which doesn't mean what it says is unreliable either.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aranaea wrote: | | lone-traveler wrote: |
...
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
...
|
Is the entire bible in parable then? How do you interpret the parables in these passages of Genesis? Does the lack of clarity affect (or should it affect) the voracity of the creation side of the evolution/creation debate?
Thank you lone-traveler |
I believe the bible is intended to be used as spiritual food.
And because we are carnal and living in a physical world, God communicates to us by using information that we can percieve and understand on a physical level.
Paul tells us to compare spiritual with spiritual. Jesus says that his words are spirit and they are life. If the flesh profits us nothing then we have to learn to look beyond the physical descriptions and percieve the spiritual realm.
To me the bible is one story told many times over. As each generation emerges we are given more details to the same genesis creation story.
In Genesis chapter 1 we are told that God sent light into the world. In John chapter 1 we are told that Jesus is this light that was sent. When you compare the OT and the NT translating spiritual information for physical information, it becomes food for the spirit more so than food for the body.
To me the bible is like an onion...it has many different layers yet they all say the same thing. Just greater details as it proceeds through time.
In the book of Genesis it says God created the heavens and the earth, in revelation we are told that God creates a new heaven and a new earth...
I believe the beginning and the ending are the same story, the same truth of creation.
We argue about evolution and creation which is a carnal arguement.
The spiritual doesn't want to condenscend to the physical and the physical doesn't want to be accused of having it's head in the clouds.... 
So God created a firmament...a middle ground where we can come together and learn about both.
The waters above..those who walk by the spirit, the waters below..earthly grounded in the physical...becoming one in body and mind where we meet Christ in the air (spiritual knowledge) and come back to the earth to teach the carnal minded about spiritual truth.
anywhoooo, that's how I understand the bible.
Hugs
Lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regnvejr
Big Goldfish
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If one insist Genesis 1 to be a literal and accurate science textbook, then you loose because it is not. On the other hand, if you look at Genesis as the description used many millennia ago by people who didn't have the Scientific Knowledge that we have today, then it is a remarkably appropriate description with only some moderately severe errors that are justified by lack of the Scientific Knowledge we hold today. So is it a remarkable attempt of an explanation from long ago or is it a proven falsehood because it isn't 100% accurate?
The creationist position is that it is 100% accurate and therefore now proven wrong. The creationists insistence on infallibility has backed them into a corner where they have to defend a false claim and therefore end up with outright falsehoods, with bearing false witness.
I see this generally as a sign of the weakness of the Faith in creationists, the desperate need for a physical, tangible God that depends on physical evidence, that depends on being seen and felt and touched. The creationists are no different than the Israelites who needed a Golden Calf to physically see God in order to have Faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1817
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The next conclusion would be that the bible is not written by God, but wholly by men. It is hampered by man's knowledge at the time.
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saibe
Ferret
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 120
Location: houston tx
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regnvejr wrote: | If one insist Genesis 1 to be a literal and accurate science textbook, then you loose because it is not. On the other hand, if you look at Genesis as the description used many millennia ago by people who didn't have the Scientific Knowledge that we have today, then it is a remarkably appropriate description with only some moderately severe errors that are justified by lack of the Scientific Knowledge we hold today. So is it a remarkable attempt of an explanation from long ago or is it a proven falsehood because it isn't 100% accurate?
The creationist position is that it is 100% accurate and therefore now proven wrong. The creationists insistence on infallibility has backed them into a corner where they have to defend a false claim and therefore end up with outright falsehoods, with bearing false witness.
I see this generally as a sign of the weakness of the Faith in creationists, the desperate need for a physical, tangible God that depends on physical evidence, that depends on being seen and felt and touched. The creationists are no different than the Israelites who needed a Golden Calf to physically see God in order to have Faith. |
The Israelites didn't need a physical representation of God they wanted it. Evolutionist desire visibility, they spiritual elements are evaluated scientifically. Is it possible there is a reason that God says: lean not to your own understanding, instead trust in him with all our heart? Comprehension works fundamentally if all elements are present.
Btw did we descend from apes or dogs these days? Insects maybe.
_________________
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.
Proverbs 23:7
Last edited by saibe on Mon May 14, 2007 5:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regnvejr
Big Goldfish
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saibe wrote: | | The Israelites didn't need a physical representation of God they wanted it. |
Let me rephrase. They wanted a physical representation of God, a proof of God. They felt a need to have evidence for God. THAT is exactly what the creationists are pushing for, a mentality that faith is not enough.
| Quote: | | Evolutionist desire visibility, for they base spiritual aspects are evaluated scientifically. |
Could you clarify your grammar here? It almost seems like you are claiming that Science is a religion? I hope that is not the case, as that would be a starkly dishonest claim.
| Quote: | | Is it possible there is a reason that God says: lean not to your own understanding, instead trust in him with all our heart? |
Ah, the creationist favorite Luddite argument against education and knowledge. The blind following with no mind. That is the argument of the cultists, the one's whose points depends on no challenge or criticism.
| Quote: | | Comprehension works fundamentally if all elements are present. Btw did we descend from apes or dogs these days? Insects maybe. |
What do you mean? This makes no sense. Do you even KNOW what Evolution is? You seem to be arguing against Evolution without even knowing what it is. Can that really be so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regnvejr wrote: | | saibe wrote: | | The Israelites didn't need a physical representation of God they wanted it. |
Let me rephrase. They wanted a physical representation of God, a proof of God. They felt a need to have evidence for God. |
 Wow! We know that they felt this need... how? Obviously you arrived at this conclusion for a reason... may be because of facts (which I don't you could produce if asked) or perhaps an exegesis of Gen 1&2 that you could explain in a page or less... or... and this is one has my vote... you arrived at this because you wanted it too... it is your opinion... and nothing more.
Looking forward to your answer Sir.
| Quote: | | It almost seems like you are claiming that Science is a religion? I hope that is not the case, as that would be a starkly dishonest claim. |
Again lets look at a term and draw some conclusions based on the evidence... shall we?
Religion: (re-li-gion) Dictionary.com says:
| Quote: | | a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. |
1. Science states that all of the matter/energy in the universe ordered itself in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In order for this to occur you have to believe that at some point in time the universes energy stepped outside of this law... which is supernatural... ergo... a belief... aka... religious.
Oh, but there is more...
2. Science states that at some point in time life came from non-life. Years and years of observations. Thousands and thousands of tests ran under the most pristine conditions, using the most advanced equipment, and tapping the worlds greatest minds have yet to even figure out the method for this to occur, let alone the process, the chemicals involved, a possible example of it ever occurring twice. So, in essence, to think that life came from non-life all on its own is a belief despite the evidence to the contrary, but a belief that it did or can... aka... a religion.
One more only because I'm spending too much time on this one imbecilic response...
3. Evolution requires that a sequential error occurring in the reproduction of a gene (aka - mutation) can and will result in the increased functionality and new information within the genome resulting in extant species. Again, the problem with this is what our observations are telling us. It all sounds like a neat little idea (really it does) but the evidence demonstrates that mutations do not produce these increases in genetic functionality and new information at the same rates as they are being degraded. In other words, they point in the opposite direction as most mutations result in the organism dying, suffering, and just not making it. However, in those organisms that you can quantifiably demonstrate that there may have been some type of benefit, there still is no increases in useful information and functionality... save.. perhaps that little nylon waste material eating bacteria... and even that is conspicuous at best. No, in order to think that this is the process for all evolutionary processes is a belief as it runs directly in opposite direction our observations point. It is therefore a belief... again... aka religion.
These examples demonstrate the necessary elements that quantify modern science as a religion.
They do this by:
A) Provide for the causes and nature of the universe without evidence
B) The purpose of the universe is to suffer and die so your species can be naturally selected because they are better adapted to propagate... (again... another belief despite the evidence to the contrary)
C) The superhuman agencies or agency becomes time and chance interactions of chemicals... in other words… nothing.
D) Your devotional and ritual observances occur in academia and the new priests of this have become teachers and professors dogmatically teaching us (without allowing anyone to challenge them) that this is how it all happened.
E) The moral code is, by default become atheistic secular humanism.
So, when you state that Saibe's claim was 'starkly dishonest' you, yourself, were being either...
A) Starkly Dishonest
or
B) Simply ignorant and incapable of objectively examining your default position.
I'm not sure which one it is/was... and being that you are sorta new here... I'll go with 'B'. But, before you imply someone is being dishonest in the future, I would ask... no... insist... you try to be pretty darn sure first as it is not only shallow… it is also unequivocally rude.
_________________
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Sir Arthur Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | regnvejr wrote: | | It almost seems like you are claiming that Science is a religion? I hope that is not the case, as that would be a starkly dishonest claim. |
Again lets look at a term and draw some conclusions based on the evidence... shall we?
Religion: (re-li-gion) Dictionary.com says: |
I love it when you do this. It means you've lost already and refuse to admit it.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: | | a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. |
1. Science states that all of the matter/energy in the universe ordered itself in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In order for this to occur you have to believe that at some point in time the universes energy stepped outside of this law... which is supernatural... ergo... a belief... aka... religious. |
The second law merely states that the entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time. I don't see how that prevents order from occuring anyway, do you?
| Trinity1 wrote: | Oh, but there is more...
2. Science states that at some point in time life came from non-life. Years and years of observations. Thousands and thousands of tests ran under the most pristine conditions, using the most advanced equipment, and tapping the worlds greatest minds have yet to even figure out the method for this to occur, let alone the process, the chemicals involved, a possible example of it ever occurring twice. So, in essence, to think that life came from non-life all on its own is a belief despite the evidence to the contrary, but a belief that it did or can... aka... a religion. |
You have a rather grand view of abiogenesis research. "The world's greatest minds?" You seriously think that's true of abiogenesis research?
The only things that can possibly come out of discovering how abiogenesis can occur are 1. once and for all shutting you and your ilk up about this subject and 2. maybe helping discover other planets on which it could have happened. That's it. It's simply not a priority because nobody really cares—it doesn't affect us one way or the other. Science doesn't operate just to smear dirt in the faces of creationists, that just happens naturally when it does its job.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | One more only because I'm spending too much time on this one imbecilic response... |
How noble of you.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | 3. Evolution requires that a sequential error occurring in the reproduction of a gene (aka - mutation) can and will result in the increased functionality and new information within the genome resulting in extant species. |
We have observed gene duplication—where a stretch of DNA will copy itself incorrectly, leading to a longer strand with a section running twice in a row. You'll be quick to point out that this is "just duplication" and not "new information" (though of course you'll neglect to define "information"), and you'd be right. But. That's an extra stretch of code which can mutate. Assuming the originally copied section still functions normally, this new section can end up totally different.
How is that not a possibility for increased functionality/new information?
Further, the whole litany of "no new information" is clearly BS on the face of it. Let's say we look at a very specific stretch of code. For example, "GTC ACG." Now. Let's say there's an error when it copies into offspring, leaving the offspring with "GTT ACG." You would claim this to be a loss of information, correct? But then that offspring could (and these are long odds but bear with me here for the sake of pointing out yet again that the "no new information" argument is retarded) pass yet another mutation on to its offspring, this time "GTC ACG." It's a mutation, but it's luckily reverted the section back to its original state. But wait, you can't get new information from mutations, only losses—so how is it that this code loses information from both mutations and yet it's right back to where it started?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Again, the problem with this is what our observations are telling us. It all sounds like a neat little idea (really it does) but the evidence demonstrates that mutations do not produce these increases in genetic functionality and new information at the same rates as they are being degraded. In other words, they point in the opposite direction as most mutations result in the organism dying, suffering, and just not making it. |
So? It doesn't happen often enough therefore it's a religion to accept the evidence that it's happened in the past?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | However, in those organisms that you can quantifiably demonstrate that there may have been some type of benefit, there still is no increases in useful information and functionality... save.. perhaps that little nylon waste material eating bacteria... and even that is conspicuous at best. |
Why yes, it is conspicuous.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No, in order to think that this is the process for all evolutionary processes is a belief as it runs directly in opposite direction our observations point. |
Except we've got one conspicuous example you were so kind to point out for us, and hey, plenty more any time you'd like to read about it.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | It is therefore a belief... again... aka religion. |
And if it was, in fact, "believed" like a religion you'd have a point. And sure, for some people it is. Some people also come pretty close to worshipping Bush, would that make government as a whole a religion?
| Trinity1 wrote: | These examples demonstrate the necessary elements that quantify modern science as a religion.
They do this by:
A) Provide for the causes and nature of the universe without evidence |
The COBE mission returned results that pretty much prove the Big Bang occurred.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | B) The purpose of the universe is to suffer and die so your species can be naturally selected because they are better adapted to propagate... (again... another belief despite the evidence to the contrary) |
You mean like believing that science has anything to do with the "purpose" of the universe despite all evidence to the contrary? I'm pretty sure I've pointed out the is-ought problem here to you before.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | C) The superhuman agencies or agency becomes time and chance interactions of chemicals... in other words… nothing. |
What?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | D) Your devotional and ritual observances occur in academia and the new priests of this have become teachers and professors dogmatically teaching us (without allowing anyone to challenge them) that this is how it all happened. |
Huh. When I went through high school it wasn't even taught, because people would have been challenging them and quite frankly that's a big hassle apparently. I mean sure, Jack Chick would have you believe that science professors are raving lunatic Jews that become insane at the thought of any student challenging them I suppose (which may not be too far off, I'd probably get kind of crazy myself if I had to refute Hovind et al's arguments on a regular basis), but I highly doubt the majority of biology education is like this.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | E) The moral code is, by default become atheistic secular humanism. |
Sorry, no, now you're lying. You know damned well science doesn't obligate a moral code—science simply doesn't deal with morals or purpose.
| Trinity1 wrote: | So, when you state that Saibe's claim was 'starkly dishonest' you, yourself, were being either...
A) Starkly Dishonest
or
B) Simply ignorant and incapable of objectively examining your default position. |
Or C) Right (saibe knew better)
D) Wrong (saibe didn't know better)
You can go with the old refrain that evolution is a religion all you want, but it is you that is being dishonest for the reasons I've pointed out to you over and over and over.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I'm not sure which one it is/was... and being that you are sorta new here... I'll go with 'B'. But, before you imply someone is being dishonest in the future, I would ask... no... insist... you try to be pretty darn sure first as it is not only shallow… it is also unequivocally rude. |
It should also be pointed out that saibe did not actually say, necessarily, that evolution is a religion. regnvejr simply pointed out that if this is the case, it was a starkly dishonest claim. Rather than let saibe speak for his- or herself, however, you decided to jump down regnvejr's throat with starkly dishonest claptrap of your own. So all well and good for you to be so gloriously self-righteous about all of this, but in the future you should probably wait for people to clarify themselves?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | And sure, for some people it is. Some people also come pretty close to worshipping Bush, would that make government as a whole a religion? |
No, but because Bush's base consists virtually exclusively of evangelical fundamentalist Christians, it does certainly mean that a lot of people are well-versed experts in the art of cognitive dissonance...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
