- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi acc,
Yes scripture draws a distinction.
Genesis 6:7
So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55) No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you.
The wisest man in the bible disagrees:Ecclesiastes 3
18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.”
19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.
20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.
21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?
Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 17 2007,20:20) Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55) No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you.
The wisest man in the bible disagrees:Ecclesiastes 3
18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.”
19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.
20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.
21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?
“Like” animals. Not animals.Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,23:51) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 17 2007,20:20) Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55) No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you.
The wisest man in the bible disagrees:Ecclesiastes 3
18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.”
19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.
20 All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust.
21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?
“Like” animals. Not animals.
A literal translation of that passage:18I said in my heart concerning the matter of the sons of man that God might cleanse them, so as to see that they themselves [are] beasts.
19For an event [is to] the sons of man, and an event [is to] the beasts, even one event [is] to them; as the death of this, so [is] the death of that; and one spirit [is] to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole [is] vanity.
20The whole are going unto one place, the whole have been from the dust, and the whole are turning back unto the dust.
Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55) No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you.
The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia. Therefore, when the word “animal” is used in a biological context, humans are included.Tim
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 15 2007,08:19) Hi Stu,
We do not need to disprove the speculations of men because our faith does not depend on it as yours does.
No, as you say, your faith certainly does not seem to have much to do with reality.Stuart
Hi David
Quote Are we sure that the word translated “circle” can't also be translated sphere? I think you are equally sure you could bend that definition right out of shape as well.
Quote Regardless, the Bible isn't a science text book and it's point wasn't to explain exactly what the earth looks like. It was a side point that the earth was mentioned at all. And the fact that it is correct to any degree is miraculous considering the time it was written and the other ideas existing at that time.
“There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.”Democritus had described the atom 2300 years before it was demonstrated to the building block for chemical matter, and not even a description of a sphere of the earth would have been miraculous at any time – you can see the curvature clearly when standing on a beach looking at the oceanic horizon, and can see that arriving ship’s masts are seen first. However, fundamentalists should be livid at your suggestion that the bible could possibly get something wrong. The bible should be the ultimate science textbook, shouldn’t it?
Quote From the vantage point of above, the earth is a circle, no question. We've seen the photographs. No, it's not an exact circle, well, unless you were directly above or below it I guess, but again, the point is obvious.
There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth. Take a picture of the earth from anywhere but the earth, and you would see a circle.But (unless you are in exact geostationary orbit) take another photograph 60 minutes later and the circle idea disappears pretty quickly.
Quote Add to this that the earth is hanging on nothing…. back then, a thought that would have appeared as nonsense. It's not held up by anything…yes, yes, we know about gravity…but again, not a science text book. The mere fact that he didn't say it was held up by turtles or something like that is miraculous. The mere fact that it didn’t say it was created in a week by an eventually angry deity and then was flooded by him later because of his continued anger is miraculous too… oh wait, it does say that.
Quote If the circle of the earth hanging on nothing is a wrong description, then I'd hate to be around you, being corrected every 3 seconds or every time someone mentions a sun rise, etc. Maybe the writer wanted to debunk the turtle hypothesis by asserting a little idea of his own. If the earth is spinning and no-one has ever seen a big thread, what are the chances that it is hanging on something? I don’t think you can call this idea exclusively divine inspired.
Quote Before, you didn't seem to be questioning whether we can trust the Bible, but you questioned whether Jesus in the Bible ever said he was the Messiah. He did. What I am questioning is whether there is any reliable way of knowing whether Jesus said he was the messiah. Early christians completely disqualified the evidence that may have suggested that.
Stuart
Hi David
Quote I wonder how much of this is just scientists putting their trust in other scientists. Their fields have grown more and more specialized. Is it possible they all just assume that the proof of evolution is in one of those other fields? Explain then why the picture of the tree of life gained by fossil morphology almost exactly fits the tree of life independently arrived at by comparative DNA studies. Explain why Darwin knew the earth had to be very old, and later physicists were able to radioisotope date the earth to ‘very old’. Science these days is about working in mutually beneficial multidiscipline groups, not from being ignorant and blindly trusting of one another. The fact that no area of science contradicts Darwin is one thing, but it is also true that all the evidence is for him and none against.
Quote If one guy who is a scientist is in biology and another is in physics, the physics guy would pretty much have to conceed that the biologists know what they are talking about. And since you have to be buddy buddy with the other biologists and go with the flow, it's easy to see how that group could be so off track. Yes, people adapt. Yes, their skin color changes and their hair gets longer or shorter. We shouldn't confuse this with a single cell organism evolving into an animal. You certainly should not confuse hair growth with evolution. That would be a strawman.
I think you should call this hypothesis of yours ‘Conspiracy Creationism’.Quote If a scientist knows that other scientists believe in evolution, they will most likely believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves or have any real reason to believe it, other than the “authority” that tells them to. Your description applies perfectly to the staff of Answers in Genesis, but you don’t understand then the second critical difference between creationism and real science, which is that real science is territorial and competitive, and there is likely a Noble Prize in it for anyone who can disprove the very falsifiable theory of evolution. What young upstart biology graduate would not like to have that as a coup against the entire fraternity of biologists? I think the answer is that as soon as they see the dispassionate evidence, they realise that creationism is all lies and bluster by fundamentalists who really do demonstrably have a conspiracy going (see Wedge Document online).
As a teenager I was skeptical about how natural selection could pull off such an amazing feat as the complexity and variety of life as I could see it. I did not have an alternative ‘answer’ like creation, I just wondered. I did not study biology formally past the age of 15, so I have not been influenced directly by academic biologists in person, and have never taken any course that had anything to do with teaching about evolution. I have read around the subject with no particular guidance than my own curiosity. I think there are probably plenty of non-biologists who appreciate the fact that evolution has occurred, almost certainly by natural selection, and they have come to that view through no undue influence of the kind to which you allude.
Stuart
Hi again David
Quote Piltdown man. Most scientists accepted this find as a genuine subhuman ancestor of man and for 45 years this find was considered to be a missing link between man and ape!
Of course, it was a total hoax. Someone had taken a human skull cap and a jaw of an orangutan, filled the teeth and planted the evidence.And yes, scientists did eventually correct this mistake. My question is:
Why was the fraud so successful?Ultimately it wasn’t successful, and it was a real surprise to those who took it seriously, showing how evolutionary theory has a predictive aspect to it.
Quote Could it be that evolutionary theory demanded the missing links so scientists found them.
They saw what they wanted to see. And they can be deceived and can accomplish self-deception on themselves.Evolution is a fact. Perhaps this ‘fossil’ had something to contribute to the story. It didn’t, it was a hoax. What Piltdown Man does show is how much creationists love the idea of scientists as conspirators.
Stuart
Hi David
Quote It is often claimed that science is objective and self-correcting, however in retrospect we see that the evidence to reject this find as legitimate was there all along. The file marks on the teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible, the molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine teeth had been filed so far down that the pulp cavity had been exposed and plugged. So, why?
I don’t know. You’re telling the conspiracy.
Stuart
Hi Nick
Quote You believe in science and you say evolution is scientific.
But then you say science is not absolute and provable but can be disproven.
So there are no true scientific facts but just a list of current probabilities that may change tomorrow.No, there are facts. Atoms, tectonic plates and the occurrence of evolution are facts. Atomic theory has been around for more than 2400 years, and although the theory of it is modified, the fact of atoms is still true. Evolution by natural selection has been around for 150 years and is yet to be disproven.
Quote And it is on this basis that you cast scorn on those who do have a basis of belief? On this basis I question those who have no basis for their beliefs.
Quote So because you cannot be sure of anything you can't stand the idea that others can know things?
If you are so unsure of things how can you afford to condemn others who do believe?The knowledge I have is provisional on someone disproving it. That is why it is useful knowledge. Actually almost none of what I have learned from me or someone else applying the scientific method has been disproven. It is dishonest for you to say that I am unsure, when your bible tells you that you cannot know the mind of your deity.
Quote Science does not seem to help you in your groping progress through life. All you believe is what you think you see and that is not so far. Not far enough to hold millions of others in contempt. It’s completely fair to very sternly question those who would like me to follow their worldview. It’s also completely fair to hold in contempt those who hold me in contempt. Perhaps not right, but at least fair!
Stuart
Hi t8
Stu: We are both animals. What else would we be? Can you show me the scriptural reason why you deny the fact of your biological classification (which, incidentally was defined by Linnaeus , a creationist)?
Quote Of course we are animals. Progress!
Quote Our bodies are physical and share DNA code with the animal kingdom. Even daffodils have DNA in common with us. But we are much more than just physical beings Stu. We can ultimately become spiritual beings/sons of God. We have this inheritance. But some men will never realise nor receive this because they remained as animals, because they let their physical instincts rule them. Ok. Cancel progress then.
Quote Galatians 6:8
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.You believe that when you are dead you will be no longer, or that you will decay. The scripture above agrees with you.
What a conceited attitude. No wonder the fundamentalists I have met in person are socially awkward and patronise others. The delusions (of grandeur) have got to them, clearly. Is that generalisation unfair?
Stuart
Hi Nick and acertainchap
Quote Yes scripture draws a distinction.
Genesis 6:7
So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”If you’re going to claim that this verse shows a distinction by saying men AND animals, don’t stop reading. It goes on AND creatures that move along the ground AND birds of the air, so by exactly the same logic, just as men are not animals, the ground-moving creatures and birds are not animals either.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 18 2007,19:30) Hi Stu,
Reality to you is only that within reach of your puny human mind and weak senses.
Yes. Absolutely it is. And it is the same for you. You were born atheist, so any knowledge you have of a god is that which you have gained through your senses. The difference is that I can show to be true (or false) the knowledge I claim to have whereas you can't show to be true your 'special' knowledge. That hardly seems either fair or believable to me.Stuart
Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 17 2007,11:55) No we are not animals t8. I disagree with you.
Our body is DNA that just happens to be in other animals, even plants. Our bodies are flesh and they will perish just the same as the animals, birds, etc.But we are not our flesh. That is the key. But some are the flesh. They are like animals because they are ruled by the flesh and instinct.
Jude 1:10
Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
18 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.Romans 8:13-14
13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,
14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.You see. Man was created in the image of God. He was created lower than the angels and in earthen vessels. But sin has made man sink lower. Some are so low that they are like the animals. They have sunk to the level of instinct and being led by the desires of the flesh. They will perish like animals too. The wicked and animals are alike. They both will perish. But eternal life is given to those of the Spirit.
A man who is led by the Spirit, it is he who is a son of God.
Therefore such a man is not an animal. He is a son.
Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.So yes sinful man is a mere animal if he choses not God. He maybe superior in intellect and other things. But he is a flesh being that is not connected to God and he will eventually perish, just as animals do.
But our hope is as follows:
1 Corinthians 15:42
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;This is the promise. Eternal life. This is given to the sons of God.
Hi t8
Quote You see. Man was created in the image of God. He was created lower than the angels and in earthen vessels. But sin has made man sink lower. Some are so low that they are like the animals. They have sunk to the level of instinct and being led by the desires of the flesh. They will perish like animals too. The wicked and animals are alike. They both will perish. But eternal life is given to those of the Spirit. A man who is led by the Spirit, it is he who is a son of God. Not just homo sapiens but homo sapiens christian clubcardiensis.
The bible is so one-dimentional here on human nature, rational ability and instinct. Animals that have mainly ‘reptillian’ brain are instinctive but poor as parents, even making a mean of their newly hatched offspring, in the case of some species. Those that have more neocortex (like humans or dolphins or even kiwi) are to varying extent capable of empathy and some reasoning. The bible writers just washed over all this subtlety with black-and-white ignorance. Perhaps they did not realise about the different types of brain contained in one human skull. So much for it being divine inspired.
Quote Therefore such a man is not an animal. He is a son. Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.So yes sinful man is a mere animal if he choses not God. He maybe superior in intellect and other things. But he is a flesh being that is not connected to God and he will eventually perish, just as animals do.
The bible talks some real unsubstantiated blather sometimes, don’t you think? Just as well its followers are able to make such crystal clear sense of it. {/sarcasm}
Stuart
Hi Stu,
So if the books could be divinely inspired then God must exist.Perhaps your books of science are divinely inspired but then all is ever unproven to you so such a god would be useless. And yet you mock the God from Whom we find truth.
Hey Stu.
You rant and rave a lot, but I have never heard you answer the following question/s:
Where did the singularity come from?
How is it that this singularity unraveled to create all things that exist today?Surely this singularity didn't come from nothing.
How can nothing produce a singularity that eventually unraveled to become a complex universe of billions of galaxies, trillions of suns, probably mega-trillions of planets, and countless atoms.
How does nothing do all this, and yet you who possesses the intelligence of a smart ape, cannot even produce a banana.
How can nothing out do you so much that it seems that you are much less than nothing?
Until you can start to tackle such things, all the other stuff you say about how one process formed another and so on, is completely meaningless with regards to God existing or not.
All that you have said so far has no bearing on the existence of God at all.
How about you start tackling that which actually matters?
I await your answer as usual, but I do expect that you will be silent once again.
But burying your head in the sand only means that someone can kick your butt. How about taking your head out of the sand and tackling the real challenge regarding your nothing became everything theory?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
