Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 20:36:16 GMT -5
Oh okay... Without going back into my own notes. The Genesis account is symbolic of what plausibly happened. If it says there were plants, and then animals - that doesn't mean there were no pollinators. It means that plants came first (I am getting tired...) Advanced pollinating plants came a lot later, and animals were quite advanced by the time this happened. And in any case, some of the days are out of sequence in Genesis. OMG, You are kidding! ?
You say, "Some of the days are out of sequence? in Genesis?"
Aren't you afraid that statement is bordering on heresy? It's interesting in that "out of sequence" events are there for everyone to read in the bible - even the Gospels have them. (Just can't think of any at the moment!)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 20:55:26 GMT -5
....and before the bible. who did we copy from , or it "started" there? Alvin Who did we copy from before the bible? Well, Abraham came from the city of Ur in Mesopotamia.
What he knew would have had to came from the culture there. He brought with him the myths & legends of that area.
Also, as I'm sure that you know, there are two versions of the first two chapters Genesis .
"The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.[1] It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.
In the first part, Genesis 1:1-2:3, Elohim, the Hebrew generic word for God, creates the heaven and the earth in six days, starting with darkness and light on the first day, and ending with the creation of mankind on the sixth day. God then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.
In the second part, Genesis 2:4-2:24 God, now referred to by the personal name "Yahweh", creates the first man from dust and breathes life into him. God then places him in the Garden of Eden and creates the first woman from his rib as a companion.
A common hypothesis among modern scholars is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[2] (In the creation narrative the two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1:1–2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4–24 is Jahwistic).[3]
Borrowing themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to Israel's belief in one God,[4] the combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.[5]
and lets not forget Lilith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 21:02:01 GMT -5
Dawkins in summary: Argument 1 - NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) Argument 2 - Various Stawman Arguments
Argument 1 - Nothing can exist outside of the universe(s) therefor God(s) are inside the universe. If God is within the universe then the laws of logic and science can disprove Him/Her.
Argument 2 - can be safely ignored.
See the problem?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 21:05:03 GMT -5
Thanks Jesse! :) Re Einstein. He is the paragon of modern intellectualism. His theory of General Relativity is considered by some to be the greatest intellectual achievement in history. "Not so much the theory, but the thinking of it" as someone put it. Having been held to such high intellectual esteem people tend to hold onto anything he says on any subject. Would you seek Einstein's advice on marriage? www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2133922/Was-Einstein-worlds-worst-husband-Wife-ordered-room-tidy-serve-meals-day--expect-NO-affection--stop-talking-demands-it.htmlSo let's not quote Einstein in Religion - it wasn't his thing. nb if Einstein was a devoted Orthodox Jew would we all rush out and buy a yarmulke (skull cap) and start chanting Hebrew verses? Of course not. And would Dawkins mention Einstein if he was a God believing man? Maybe not. :) I can understand how a religious person might want to put a lid on Einstein's thoughts about religion - especially his thoughts about the concept of a "personal god". Einstein devoted his life to "sitting at the feet" of the mysteries of the universe; I see him as being as qualified to comment about religion as any monk, priest, rabbi, or Worker. I don't pay attention to his ideas about religion just because he was smart. His words grab me; they express well some aspects of my own lived experience and points of view I have come to hold. IMO, if anything should stop, it should be attempts by theistic types to claim Einstein as a fellow believer in "God".
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 21:10:05 GMT -5
Dawkins in summary: Argument 1 - NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) Argument 2 - Various Stawman Arguments
Argument 1 - Nothing can exist outside of the universe(s) therefor God(s) are inside the universe. If God is within the universe then the laws of logic and science can disprove Him/Her.
Argument 2 - can be safely ignored.
See the problem? The problem I see, is that you haven't established enough credibility in your representation of Dawkins' arguments for me to take your word for any of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 21:54:40 GMT -5
Quote - "The problem I see, is that you haven't established enough credibility in your representation of Dawkins' arguments for me to take your word for any of this."
Neither has Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 22:00:15 GMT -5
Quote - " The problem I see, is that you haven't established enough credibility in your representation of Dawkins' arguments for me to take your word for any of this."Neither has Dawkins.I am still reading Dawkins. It may take me a few days, but I will post more that I hope will make clear why I make this assertion.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 22:16:51 GMT -5
Did you actually hear the atheist on the radio or were you hearing the conversation from your friend's POV?
If you didn't actually hear the atheist, how do you know that, "the guy on the radio in that conversation was. He wanted everyone to know he was right and that anyone who didn't agree was wrong."
Isn't your friend going to present to you what his perception of the atheist meant? (That is not the same as lying, -it is just how people perceive an event)
1) The big Bang is NOT the atheist's "equalivant of God!"
The "big bang", is a scientific view of the beginning of the universe.
2) You quoted a British atheist who explained the big bang to you. Was he also a scientist?
When it comes to evolution the spoutiness of an athiest seems to be in inverse proportion to the amount of formal education on the subject. The spoutiest are those on internet boards with the least amount of education. They mark their spots like big dogs in the smelliest way possible. Coupled with the spoutiness factor is the tendency to make it personal. The same phenomena seems to hold true, those who know less, are less objective, and seem to take it to a personal level more often. The athiest was a truck driver, not someone you would expect to have much of an objective for formal education on the subject of evolution. It it doesn't surprise me his spoutiness factor was pretty high. The Brit wasn't a scientist, but his IQ was 156. It it doesn't surprise me his spoutiness factor was pretty high.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 22:19:49 GMT -5
Parts of it, not really interested enough to read the whole thing. Not "afraid" of it either. Then perhaps you should read Dawkins book, The God Delusion before you just accept what is interpreted by Bert, -or anyone for that matter.
Liking how Bert thinks and interacts on this board does not mean I'm accepting his interpretation of Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 22:23:34 GMT -5
OK. I am trying to resolve what appear to be inconsistencies in the arguments Bert is using to attack Dawkins' work. Do you have a suggestion? Stick with objective non-personal data like he does.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 22:56:08 GMT -5
The study of God delusions is not science.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 23:35:21 GMT -5
Quote - " What do you mean that some evolutionists say, "there being no "progress" in evolution?"Evolution has NOT been directional.We are only seeing the end results.We don't see the many results that didn't survive & dropped by the wayside, except in some cases of fossils remains we can see those that didn't make it.As for a "goal" in evolution - NO, It isn't in the realm of theology and philosophy. It is still in the realm of biology.The only goal in evolution is the goal for biological survival."I am aware of the argument. I take it as a no-brainer that if I disagree with something in science then it is me who is wrong. But... having said that- there DOES seem to be a "direction" to evolution. Take a look at the evolution of the tetrapods - fish to amphibian to reptile to mammals or birds. I see direction there as the LEADING EDGE of this clade is becoming increasingly advanced, ie look at the rise of the Homonids and Homo sapien. Yes, take a good look at the rise of the hominids and homo sapiens, but remember that the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did not survive.
So what happened there? How directional was that?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 23:42:34 GMT -5
OK. I am trying to resolve what appear to be inconsistencies in the arguments Bert is using to attack Dawkins' work. Do you have a suggestion? Stick with objective non-personal data like he does. Jessie, Bert doesn't always "stick with objective non-personal data!" Do you need glasses?
Look at this quote of his: "I take it as a no-brainer that if I disagree with something in science then it is me who is wrong."
He makes as many of these kinds of statements as any of the rest of us!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 23:45:48 GMT -5
Did you actually hear the atheist on the radio or were you hearing the conversation from your friend's POV?
If you didn't actually hear the atheist, how do you know that, "the guy on the radio in that conversation was. He wanted everyone to know he was right and that anyone who didn't agree was wrong."
Isn't your friend going to present to you what his perception of the atheist meant? (That is not the same as lying, -it is just how people perceive an event)
1) The big Bang is NOT the atheist's "equalivant of God!"
The "big bang", is a scientific view of the beginning of the universe.
2) You quoted a British atheist who explained the big bang to you. Was he also a scientist?
When it comes to evolution the spoutiness of an athiest seems to be in inverse proportion to the amount of formal education on the subject. The spoutiest are those on internet boards with the least amount of education. They mark their spots like big dogs in the smelliest way possible. Coupled with the spoutiness factor is the tendency to make it personal. The same phenomena seems to hold true, those who know less, are less objective, and seem to take it to a personal level more often. The athiest was a truck driver, not someone you would expect to have much of an objective for formal education on the subject of evolution. It it doesn't surprise me his spoutiness factor was pretty high. The Brit wasn't a scientist, but his IQ was 156. It it doesn't surprise me his spoutiness factor was pretty high. Jessie, I could make that same observations about how some Christians act.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 2, 2014 0:01:34 GMT -5
DMG I know, and it doesn't make either side look very good. People do it anyway, it's probably because the Neanderthal branch of the hominids actually did survive. If that branch didn't survive how you explain some of the behavior you see? Look at this quote of his: "I take it as a no-brainer that if I disagree with something in science then it is me who is wrong."
He makes as many of these kinds of statements as any of the rest of us!
I don't understand how that statement has anything to do with what I said. ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 0:23:29 GMT -5
Quote - "Yes, take a good look at the rise of the hominids and homo sapiens, but remember that the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did not survive. So what happened there? How directional was that?"
The genes of Neanderthal which (most likely) conferred survivability against the northern hemisphere environment, were passed onto non-African humans. It made the best Homo species even better. And in part helps explain why Africans seem to be more vulnerable to various diseases than Caucasian, Asian and Polynesian people.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 2, 2014 0:28:54 GMT -5
DMG I know, and it doesn't make either side look very good. People do it anyway, it's probably because the Neanderthal branch of the hominids actually did survive. If that branch didn't survive how you explain some of the behavior you see? No, the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did NOT survive. Check them out.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 2, 2014 0:34:08 GMT -5
Quote - "Yes, take a good look at the rise of the hominids and homo sapiens, but remember that the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did not survive. So what happened there? How directional was that?" The genes of Neanderthal which (most likely) conferred survivability against the northern hemisphere environment, were passed onto non-African humans. It made the best Homo species even better. And in part helps explain why Africans seem to be more vulnerable to various diseases than Caucasian, Asian and Polynesian people. No the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did not survive!
Some of their genes were passed on, but they themselves did not survive!
You are actually showing how evolution does work, whether you want to believe in evolution or not!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 0:45:54 GMT -5
Uh... confusion, misrepresentation and stawmen about here!!!
I DO believe in evolution - always have. We are talking not just about survival of a species here, but survival of that species genetic toolkit. Homo sapien sapien was most likely the "best" of the African Homo sapien sub-species. On its way out-of-Africa it improved itself with neanderthal genes (and probably Homo denisovan genes too.)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 2, 2014 2:41:42 GMT -5
DMG I know, and it doesn't make either side look very good. People do it anyway, it's probably because the Neanderthal branch of the hominids actually did survive. If that branch didn't survive how you explain some of the behavior you see? No, the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did NOT survive. Check them out.DMG that was tongue in cheek.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 4:48:58 GMT -5
Ram, my understanding of the bible is that those who have not loved God are destined forever to KEEP their human nature. This is my reading of what Jesus said about the worm never dying and the thirst never quenched. If we don't love God then we are destined to keep the nature we loved, and forever crave for the things we once lived for. Bert, I understand what you mean, but I would add that those who do not love God will end up hating their human nature/past and will be desiring to love God but the gulf denies them. Bible advice in that regard is to make hay while the sun shines. In any case it amounts to the same thing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 4:54:18 GMT -5
Gone will be our human nature Snow. We will only have the divine nature of God. That takes care of boredom. It's a human thing. Creative people are never bored. They always find something to do. That's how God combated boredom. He became very creative. I can only experience reincarnation if I visit America twice as I haven't been once yet. You see, America has been described as the "Car Nation" and I have never been "in car nation" so in order to experience "re in car nation" I would have to visit America once and then to make at least one further visit to experience "re in car nation." Lol you really need to visit the states I guess. Come to Canada. It's beautiful. Just don't come in the winter. Human nature. Well it's all the 'nature' I know of so it's all I can base an endless existence on isn't it. No one really has explained to me what they will be doing in heaven and what that will be like. Do you know other than 'it won't be boring'? Also, if it takes a creative nature to not be bored, will you be creating in heaven also? So many questions so few answers. I would love to come to Canada, however it would have to be in winter. I want to see "SNOW!" In Heaven we will be living like Kings and Queens, served hand and foot. Great banquets. Basking in the glory of the Almighty God and ruling over the nations and so on. Everything that's bad about the present life will be gone, replaced by eternal bliss, harmony, contentment, joy, peace, love and hopefully Snow!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 7:24:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 2, 2014 8:44:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2014 10:37:23 GMT -5
Quote - "The problem with this idea is that "something" has to "explode" in a given "time" and a given "place." None of these attributes are available in the "void." In "outer space" there is "space", ie distance, dimensions etc. Plus there's a vacuum, energy, radiation, gamma rays, hydrogen atoms etc.. The "void" this guy is speaking of is a void beyond comprehension. And beyond science, too. You can't have a Big Bang in a "void." I am aware that "space" is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang, so I should not have said a Big Bang cannot occur in a void, but if there's NO geometric space it stretches science (let alone the imagination) to "explain" how (again) "Something came from Nothing"You could look into some of the theories that seek to explain this possibility. Of course the bottom line is - no one knows. Some simply are ok with not knowing and others throw in a god of the gaps for the immediate 'answer'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 2, 2014 11:32:54 GMT -5
No, the Neanderthal branch of the hominids did NOT survive. Check them out. DMG that was tongue in cheek. Yes, I understand. I thought you might have meant it that way.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2014 12:37:50 GMT -5
Lol you really need to visit the states I guess. Come to Canada. It's beautiful. Just don't come in the winter. Human nature. Well it's all the 'nature' I know of so it's all I can base an endless existence on isn't it. No one really has explained to me what they will be doing in heaven and what that will be like. Do you know other than 'it won't be boring'? Also, if it takes a creative nature to not be bored, will you be creating in heaven also? So many questions so few answers. I would love to come to Canada, however it would have to be in winter. I want to see "SNOW!" In Heaven we will be living like Kings and Queens, served hand and foot. Great banquets. Basking in the glory of the Almighty God and ruling over the nations and so on. Everything that's bad about the present life will be gone, replaced by eternal bliss, harmony, contentment, joy, peace, love and hopefully Snow! Snow is over rated lol. However, if you really want to see snow you should have been in Buffalo, New York recently. They must have been nominated by God for the Ice bucket challenge. Heaven is being waited on and eating? Joy, peace and love do sound good though. I'm kinda hoping no snow, that would not be blissful...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 2, 2014 12:40:26 GMT -5
Jesse, don't be bad mouthing the Neanderthals now....
|
|