Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a thought.
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 13 (9188)
05-03-2002 12:20 PM


First let me give you some of my background. I am not scientifically trained. Nor am I particularly religious. I was baptized, and barmitzvahed. I went to a Protestant Boarding school and took theology for 3 years, followed by many history courses dealing with the Church(basically the years following the death of christ to the 16th century). What I speak about comes from 17 years(from age 13 to present) of asking questions and wondering.
From my own meager observations I have come to a few conclusions. One. Evolution happens.
Two. Organized religions are devices to control the thoughts of the masses. They will lie, cheat, bend the truth, do whatever they need to do to stay in control.
Three. Many people need to feel they have a purpose, and having an all powerful diety that controls their destiny, and gives them a purpose makes them feel better about their lot in the universe.
Four. Scientific Methods and Creation theory have a hard time co-existing.
Based on these observations, and what I know about the bible, I have come to this conclusion. Darwin was right, but so was the bible. It is my position however that the bible was never meant to be taken as a literal history of the earth, and man. Rather, to be used as a moral code. What if Genisis IS right? If it is to be taken literally, then the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, all living creatures placed upon it, man and woman to rule them. However scientific methods have shown that there are fossils older than the the bible would have us believe possible. That men lived for hundreds of years. That a worldwide flood destroyed all life except what God(Yaweh the war god, who was kept in the arc of the covenant) deemed worthy of life. Instead consider this. The bible is in fact a bunch of parables. This would allow for much wiggle room, and make all these debates null and void.
Consider Genisis. Creationists now contend that the creation talks about the physical body. What if the authers were talking about the soul? God created the earth, placed the animals upon it and let them evolve. He infused our ancestors with a soul, a soul created in his image, and that is what makes us what we are. That interpritation no longer is open to debate, and becomes a philisophical ideoligy. It also allows for evolution, which has sufficent evidence to back it up as far as I have seen and read, to hold true.
The problem as I see it is that creationists, for all the talk about science, are using a religious book as a reference. A religious book that is comprised of stories that can be traced back to a time before the cannanites existed. A book that has the nature of God changing from chapter to chapter. Think about it. Yaweh wanted the jews to destroy all those that stood in there way, and take an eye for an eye. Christ does a complete 180. There are some fundimental problems with this. If the bible is literal, then God essentially changed his mind. Omnipotent all seeing, all powerful beings don't change thier minds, they know from the start what is the best course of action and don't need to change, that part of being an allpowerful, omnipotent being. As a parable, God can do whatever the author requires god do to teach a lesson. The inherent contradictions of the bible make it impossible to be taken as the literal word of god. But, as a metaphor it works fine, in fact is flawless, as it is impossible to prove or disprove the meaning you take from the metaphor. It is a personal experience that relies faith, and that cannot be argued. What I find rather ironic is that this thinking would end the discussion once and for all, Darwin AND the bible could be "right," but rather than consider that notion, creationists are to Proud(pride is a sin I believe) and would rather spend their time trying to be right. In essence they need to be connected to the universe so they have a purpose and can get into heavan, but rather than find a way to be right along with an evolutionists their pride, something that can keep them out of the very place they hope to go, prevents it.
I know this was problably a hard read, its early and I wrote this on the fly without much preperation in terms of grammar or spelling, which are not my strongest allies

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 05-03-2002 1:03 PM RedVento has not replied
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 05-03-2002 6:45 PM RedVento has replied
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2002 11:39 AM RedVento has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 13 (9189)
05-03-2002 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RedVento
05-03-2002 12:20 PM


Of course what you say makes perfect sense, but young earth creationists are also extremists and view your ideas as heretical. In short, logic applies to anything outside of their religious beliefs. Logic is not useful in arguing against dogmatism. I'll always say that young earth creationists worship the bible as God rather than the God of the Bible.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RedVento, posted 05-03-2002 12:20 PM RedVento has not replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 13 (9190)
05-03-2002 1:20 PM


What I don't understand is how they rectify the inconsitencies in the bible? How can they say part is literal, part is not? Who decides what is literal then? It always seems to come back to the bible decides what the bible decides. And that is what doesn't sit well with me. For all their search for evidence they still have to rely on a foundation that cannot be validated as a literal truth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 05-06-2002 11:21 AM RedVento has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 13 (9199)
05-03-2002 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RedVento
05-03-2002 12:20 PM


"From my own meager observations I have come to a few conclusions. One. Evolution happens."
--We can agree there.
"Two. Organized religions are devices to control the thoughts of the masses. They will lie, cheat, bend the truth, do whatever they need to do to stay in control."
--I pity the many in which this may apply.
"Three. Many people need to feel they have a purpose, and having an all powerful diety that controls their destiny, and gives them a purpose makes them feel better about their lot in the universe."
--Of course it does, however, on a personal level I think it is logical to say that if this is the reason for belief then science is not the field for them.
"Four. Scientific Methods and Creation theory have a hard time co-existing."
--Powerful statement there, I could wonder why the scientific method is all I have gone by and succeeded in a vast amount of areas, while others require some/extensive work, or even to be addressed.
"Based on these observations, and what I know about the bible, I have come to this conclusion. Darwin was right, but so was the bible. It is my position however that the bible was never meant to be taken as a literal history of the earth, and man. Rather, to be used as a moral code."
--I'm glad to see you have posed it as 'your' position.
"What if Genisis IS right? If it is to be taken literally, then the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, all living creatures placed upon it, man and woman to rule them. However scientific methods have shown that there are fossils older than the the bible would have us believe possible."
--No not actually, in this sense, science has shown us current rates of radionucleic decay, and experimentation has shown us that geochronology is examined by isotopic ratio's whether daughter-daughter or parent-daughter, initial conditions are pre-conceived. Not that I am arguing against this, I am simply arguing against the conclusive value some will give to say that 'this is this old, so a literal reading of the bible is wrong', or something along that line.
"That men lived for hundreds of years."
--Evidently, this is very plausible.
"That a worldwide flood destroyed all life except what God(Yaweh the war god, who was kept in the arc of the covenant) deemed worthy of life. Instead consider this. The bible is in fact a bunch of parables. This would allow for much wiggle room, and make all these debates null and void."
--And my position is to say that this is your position and nothing more.
"Consider Genisis. Creationists now contend that the creation talks about the physical body. What if the authers were talking about the soul?"
--Actually it states both, it states that he created man and then that he breathed life into him, obviously this can if rigorously toying with it, you could come up with a lot of things.
"God created the earth, placed the animals upon it and let them evolve. He infused our ancestors with a soul, a soul created in his image, and that is what makes us what we are. That interpritation no longer is open to debate, and becomes a philisophical ideoligy. It also allows for evolution, which has sufficent evidence to back it up as far as I have seen and read, to hold true."
--I agree, however as for your 4th statement, 'which has sufficient evidence to back it up as far as I have seen and read to hold true', according to reading your posts since you have joined us, this is very much given credibility by what is observed today, not in the past. And what has occurred in the past and what it has left behind is open to debate and interpretable.
"The problem as I see it is that creationists, for all the talk about science, are using a religious book as a reference."
--Please, I urge you, find in any of my hundreds of posts where I use the bible as my evidence and my reference and I might as well create a new username in my embarrassment.
--I would comment on the rest of your post, however, there are more qualified here and more will enjoy discussing the following with you. I am more into putting my time into discussing the science.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-03-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RedVento, posted 05-03-2002 12:20 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RedVento, posted 05-06-2002 10:09 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 13 (9259)
05-06-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
05-03-2002 6:45 PM


"Four. Scientific Methods and Creation theory have a hard time co-existing."
--Powerful statement there, I could wonder why the scientific method is all I have gone by and succeeded in a vast amount of areas, while others require some/extensive work, or even to be addressed.
--I didn't say that can't, only they have a hard time.
"That men lived for hundreds of years."
--Evidently, this is very plausible.
--Please tell me where I can find some research on this. As of right now the only place *I* know that says people lived for 400+ years is the bible.
"That a worldwide flood destroyed all life except what God(Yaweh the war god, who was kept in the arc of the covenant) deemed worthy of life. Instead consider this. The bible is in fact a bunch of parables. This would allow for much wiggle room, and make all these debates null and void."
--And my position is to say that this is your position and nothing more.
--You are right, it is my position, but it is also a position that makes sense, and allows everyone to be right.
"The problem as I see it is that creationists, for all the talk about science, are using a religious book as a reference."
--Please, I urge you, find in any of my hundreds of posts where I use the bible as my evidence and my reference and I might as well create a new username in my embarrassment.
-- I don't need to. Creationism is based on the bible no? If that is the case then ALL research is referenced to it. The bible says the earth is young and creationists are trying to show that to be true. If there was no bible, there would be no creation science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 05-03-2002 6:45 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 05-06-2002 5:38 PM RedVento has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 13 (9264)
05-06-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RedVento
05-03-2002 1:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
What I don't understand is how they rectify the inconsitencies in the bible? How can they say part is literal, part is not? Who decides what is literal then? It always seems to come back to the bible decides what the bible decides. And that is what doesn't sit well with me. For all their search for evidence they still have to rely on a foundation that cannot be validated as a literal truth.
How can they do all of these things? Because it is a lot easier to believe things that make us feel important, or good, or right, than it is to be intellectually-honest.
It is a great deal easier to take a simplistic, literal view of the stories in the Bible than it is to think hard about what the symbolic messages are. It takes study and research to understand context, and it is simply easier to not bother with all of that.
Thinking is hard, and we all know that Americans are much more interested in being entertained than in having their intellect stimulated.
We would rather feel good than think well. We are trained to be that way.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RedVento, posted 05-03-2002 1:20 PM RedVento has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 13 (9283)
05-06-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RedVento
05-06-2002 10:09 AM


Everyone is stealing my response style *grrr* my, quote and respond with a "--" format. First Philip, now redvento, G-whiz!
"--I didn't say that can't, only they have a hard time. "
--I must then emphasize, I have no more of a hard time than conventional scientists.
"--Please tell me where I can find some research on this. As of right now the only place *I* know that says people lived for 400+ years is the bible."
--Well I can't give you research done on humans, I can show you just how 'easy' genetically, it is to have this ability is. I would direct your attention toward telomere and telomerase studies, a very nice research group which I had found is located here:
http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html
--I would urge you to read abstracts to articles which they have listed and linked there.
"--You are right, it is my position, but it is also a position that makes sense, and allows everyone to be right."
--'Right' only by interpretation.
"-- I don't need to. Creationism is based on the bible no?"
--Not based on, included.
"If that is the case then ALL research is referenced to it."
--No, sorry.
"The bible says the earth is young and creationists are trying to show that to be true."
--Some yes, in this case you would be right, however, it is only their conclusions upon data which this would be a factor. Conclusions which I may differ with many creationists.
"If there was no bible, there would be no creation science."
--There would have been no idea of it in the first place. However as I have explained, the term 'creation science' is misleading in its name.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RedVento, posted 05-06-2002 10:09 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-06-2002 6:00 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 9 by RedVento, posted 05-07-2002 11:43 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 13 (9286)
05-06-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by TrueCreation
05-06-2002 5:38 PM


It might just be me, but I find your "response style" extremely hard to follow.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 05-06-2002 5:38 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 05-15-2002 11:08 AM Percy has not replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 13 (9311)
05-07-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TrueCreation
05-06-2002 5:38 PM


I'll use bbcode from now on
quote:
"--I didn't say that can't, only they have a hard time. "
--I must then emphasize, I have no more of a hard time than conventional scientists.
I would argue that you have a harder time. Conventional scientists have how many years of research backing up their claims of an old earth and evolution? You need to come up with theories that can be demonstrated and repeated that will refute conventional thinking, you have an uphill battle for sure.
quote:
"-- I don't need to. Creationism is based on the bible no?"
--Not based on, included.
Where did the idea for creationism come from then if not the old testament? Was the idea plucked out of the air and then ancient texts looked for to back up said idea? Can you give me links to non christian sites that refrence other ancient texts besides the bible? Can you give me any references that show how creationism is really a search for the origins of man and the earth with no references to any holy book? Think about it, you are trying to prove the existance of a world flood, that is only referenced(if I am wrong please let me know) in the BIBLE. You are trying to prove the BIBLE right.
quote:
"If that is the case then ALL research is referenced to it."
--No, sorry.
Is based upon a better choice of words? But make no mistake, the bible is a major influence in creationism. If the bible said God made us from monkeys would there be Creationism?
quote:
"The bible says the earth is young and creationists are trying to show that to be true."
--Some yes, in this case you would be right, however, it is only their conclusions upon data which this would be a factor. Conclusions which I may differ with many creationists.
Ok, if you fail to find sufficient evidence that points to a world wide flood, or you are shown flaws in your conclusions at what point do you say "I am barking up the wrong tree, the Earth is Old" or "We can't find evidence of 400 year old men, maybe we did evolve." At what point do you, personally, decide to do that? You say your conclusions are different than many creationists, which conclusions are they? Do they concern young earth theory or conclusions about human origins?
quote:
"If there was no bible, there would be no creation science."
--There would have been no idea of it in the first place. However as I have explained, the term 'creation science' is misleading in its name.
As a non-creationist, please tell me what creation science is really about then. I would honestly like to understand. As far as I know creation science refers to the science of showing that Darwin was wrong, the earth is young and the bible is literal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 05-06-2002 5:38 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 05-07-2002 11:59 AM RedVento has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 10 of 13 (9312)
05-07-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RedVento
05-07-2002 11:43 AM


TC has been not only been pointed to webpages at ICR and CRS where they explicitly state their reliance on the Bible as the ultimate authority on origins, he's even been provided excerpts from these pages in messages posted here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RedVento, posted 05-07-2002 11:43 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RedVento, posted 05-07-2002 1:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 13 (9317)
05-07-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
05-07-2002 11:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
TC has been not only been pointed to webpages at ICR and CRS where they explicitly state their reliance on the Bible as the ultimate authority on origins, he's even been provided excerpts from these pages in messages posted here.
--Percy

Thanks Percy. Whith that(bible as final word) does is boils the creationist argument down to, and this is not scientific, but rather astute observation, the desire to give man a place in the cosmos. The Bible explains our relationship with God and nature and gives us a meaning, evolution makes our existance nothing more than chance circumstance. There is nothing scientific about that, and all the research in the world will not change the fact that at the root of the creationist mind is the need to justify his/her existance and give himself/herself a higher purpose. They can fool themselves into thinking there is a non-religious, non-psychological reason for the research and the need to be right(discredit Darwin) but when all the BS reasonings are torn away you are left with one truth. The need to feel important(God put me here for a reason).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 05-07-2002 11:59 AM Percy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 13 (9466)
05-10-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RedVento
05-03-2002 12:20 PM


When you say "evolution" happens do you mean any more than that one can walk differently into than out of AMNH? This is a serious qestion becasue the flow between Buffalo and NYC can often mask for the failure to comprehend that Croizat had dismantled the reference valdation that currently dominates in evolututionary theory.
With only Croizat's foot notes to work from then, it far from clear to me just how much beyond path analysis evolution occurs causally. The correlation is not causation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RedVento, posted 05-03-2002 12:20 PM RedVento has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 13 (9677)
05-15-2002 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
05-06-2002 6:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
It might just be me, but I find your "response style" extremely hard to follow.
--Percy

No it's not just you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 05-06-2002 6:00 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024