- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Nick
I am pleased for you that you have found a source of direction for your life. I have know since my days listening to Sunday School teachers that I wasn't going to be able to believe any of it, and that it explained nothing and had little to offer me. (I suppose I should be grateful that Alcoholics Anonymous has nothing to offer me either, but possibly other organisations might). I know it's no help to you but I don't consider you to be a sinner. Even if it were not a Catholic construct, the concept of sin is too vague and one-dimensional to describe complex human behaviour. It adds nothing to our understanding of human motivations and actions. If the nasty dogma of Original Sin is a concept enforced by the deity then s/he is not even worthy of contempt, let alone worship. In any case, by His own standards, the hypocritical god of the OT is one of the most prolific sinners of all fictional literature. There is little improvement in the NT!
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You can choose not to believe but I do not wish to help you abuse the one you do not believe in.Hi Nick,
Yes you are right, I may as well abuse Voldemort or Dracula for all the real difference it will make.I think I've got a bit off topic, anyway.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 25 2007,20:36) I know it's no help to you but I don't consider you to be a sinner. Even if it were not a Catholic construct, the concept of sin is too vague and one-dimensional to describe complex human behaviour. It adds nothing to our understanding of human motivations and actions. If the nasty dogma of Original Sin is a concept enforced by the deity then s/he is not even worthy of contempt, let alone worship. In any case, by His own standards, the hypocritical god of the OT is one of the most prolific sinners of all fictional literature. There is little improvement in the NT!
Hmmm….let me see if i'm following you….Sin is not real, it's an intangible, ethereal concept that has no place in your reality……unless of course a deity you don't believe exists does it (prolifically), then it's real.
Have I got it?
Hi Is 1:18
Gen 7:23; Gen 19:24; Gen 19:26; Gen 38:7; Gen 38:10; Ex 9:25; Ex 12:29-30; Ex 14:28; Ex 17:13; Ex 32:27-28; Lev 10:1-3; Num 3:4; Num 26:61; Lev 24:10-23; Num 1:11; Num 14:35-36; Num 15:32-36; Num.16:27; Num.16:35 & 26:10; Num.16:49; Num.21:1-3; Num.21:6; Num.21:34-35; Num.25:9; Num.31:1-35; Dt. 2:21-22; Dt.2:33-34; Dt.3:3-6; Joshua 6:21; Joshua 7:10-12; 24-26; Joshua 8:1-25; Joshua 10:10-11; Joshua 10:24-26; Joshua 10:28-42; Joshua 11:8-12; Joshua 11:20-21; Judges 1:4; Jg.3:15-22; Jg.3:28-29; Jg.4:15; Jg.7:2-22 & 8:10; Jg.11:32-33; Jg.14:19; Jg.15:14-15; Jg.16:27-30; Jg.20:35-37; 1 Sam.6:19; 1 Sam.14:121; Sam.14:20; 1 Sam.15:2-3; 1 Sam.15:32-33; 1 Sam.23:2-5; 1 Sam.25:38; 2 Sam.5:19, 25; 2 Sam.6:6-7; 1 Chr.13:9-10; 2 Samuel 12:14-18; 2 Sam.21:1; 2 Sam.21:6-9 2; Sam.24:13; 1 Chr.21:7; 2 Kings 1:2-4, 17; 2 Kg.19:35; 2 Chr.32:21; Is.37:36; 1 Chronicles 10:14; 2 Chronicles 13:15-17; 2 Chr.13:20; 2 Chr.36:16-17; Acts 5:1-10; Acts 12:23. And that’s just the killing.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
These scriptures do not indicate sinning on the part of YHWH. Is it a sin to rid those ruining the earth? This is righteousness on YHWH's behalf since he is without sin. YHWH has standards that are just. When man chooses to rebel against those righteous standards, whose fault is it? Man's.
Perhaps you would be so kind to elaborate on your reasons for those scriptures?
Thanks
The start of this thread was a challenge from t8 to present “proof” for or against the theory of evolution. As you can’t formally prove things in any field except mathematics, lets substitute “evidence”.
Several posters have fallen into classic traps or misconceptions:Surgeon83
++“The problem occurrs when we start speaking of the evolution of individual species. This hasn't ever been recorded, anywhere.”New species have arisen time and again throughout the fossil record.
++…the unlikely mutation described above has to be done in the exact same manner at the exact same time in the same species of the opposite sex so that this “new” species can reproduce and propagate…”
A mutation could be passed on to offspring of either gender.
++”I do realize that There hasn't been any observation (to my knowledge) that has found a mutation to prompt the arrival of a new species”
Nor would you expect one single mutation to result in a new species.
t8
++”One of the main precepts of Evolution is the idea that simple things become more complex given time, yet there are also laws such as we see in thermodynamics which say the opposite, that complex things break down into simple things given time”Increasing complexity is not a precept of evolution. Fitness for survival and reproduction are the only criteria. Increased complexity may help survival or reproduction, which may explain an apparent increase in complexity.
If the Second Law of thermodynamics worked the way some creationists claim, none of us would ever have been born.++”Another difficulty for the theory of Evolution is in describing how Evolution or nothing constructed what we see in the micro world of Quantum”
This is a challenge for physicists, not evolutionary biologists.
JoeJoe
++”I would like to add that every genetic mutation results in a loss of information.”Genetic mutation adds to the variation in the population. Natural selection chooses genes that give the best survival/reproduction chances, and in the process reduces the amount of information in the population.
Iceis
++”I alway say if evolution existed then wheres the half monkeys/half humans.”Humans are apes. We share a common ancestor species with monkeys (long ago) and other more recent ancestors in common with our much closer cousins the great apes.
++” ALso the whole fact that humans and animals cant breed. Theres no compatible Dna or something like that so we cant give birth to anything except humans. Wouldent we be able to if we did in fact come from other animals? “
Animals of one species don’t breed with animals of another. That’s the working definition of the word species. There has been an unbroken chain of reproduction since the first bacterium-like ancestor. Because change has accumulated gradually, the last in the chain can no longer breed with the first. Every link in the chain is equally a “missing” link. Where one species stops and another starts is often not clear-cut.
Is 1:18
++” Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…”All fossils are transitional forms.
++” … Although many pondered how feathers could have developed…given that the macro-evolution is essentially directionless and random (what would be the mechanism for the change?). Even if it could have happaned the transitional form would be this creature with partially-developed feathers on its limbs. This would have inhibited its competitiveness (it would be less fit to survive) – being not developed enough to allow flight (or insulation) but developed enough to reduce mobility. This halfway organism, totally vulnerable to any predator, would be selected AGAINST, quickly becoming extinct. You could make the same case for any of the transition phases btwn main forms.”
Evolution is far from directionless. It just does not have a predetermined direction. Predators and their prey guide one another’s evolution like an arms race. In pre-birds, the little proto-feathers had to provide an advantage straight away. Just because you can’t think of a possible advantage doesn’t mean there wasn’t one.
++”DNA is too complex to have evolved. Yet it has specified complexity – that is the specific way it is ordered produces a meaningful instruction. This cannot evolve from nothing – not in any concievable timeframe.
Translation: I can’t imagine how it could have evolved.
++” Cosmology… The anthropic principle is also good evidence for a God-created earth. It states that everything is in perfect balance. The size of the earth is just big enough to support an atmosphere. The distance from the sun is just right to support life (1% closer or further away and we would be incinerated or snap frozen). It all points to design.”
Conditions support life on this planet therefore we were designed? That doesn’t follow at all.
Cubes
++”In our day to day lives, I can't think of anything that is done without design: eg. cooking a meal, the cars we drive, a garment, etc. Thus when I consider the universe and all that is in it, I find it hard to believe that there is no designer.”And yet it is true!
Mercy
++”Darwin himself said that if 'missing links' aren't found his theory will collapse… The problem is not just that we can't find missing links but that there should be MORE missing links than standard fossils. The theory demands millions and millions of missing links. Yet, we find only standard fossils…”All fossils are transitional forms. Even if we had no fossils at all, the evidence written in modern DNA provides all you need to show common ancestry.
Stuart
Leave the last word here to Saucy:
++”Now, the big question isn't where we came from, but where did God come from?”That evolution has occurred is a fact. How natural selection did it is open to debate on finder details.
Darwin’s theory could be wrong but time and again new discoveries have strengthened it. The only dissent now comes from those who insist that their holy book cannot possibly be wrong.To my mind this leaves a choice of four positions:
1. The universe and life on earth was created as described in holy books and the creator has set up sequences of fossils, background radiation, stars already billions of years onto their life cycles etc to make it look like stellar and biological evolution have occurred.
2. A deist view, where a creator kicked things off (say, with a big bang) and has made no further intervention, allowing evolution to provide the variety of life we see.
3. The holy book is right and I will believe it even though it is entirely contrary to the evidence.
4. There is no supernatural creator and science provides the best explanation, or will provide a better explanation in the future.The first calls into question the character of such a creator, that he would attempt to deceive his creation. Deism can’t be distinguished from atheism except for the proposition of an unexplained creator. The third is honest but naïve.
Stuart
Hi Bibliophile,
The so-called commandment against murder is recorded at least twice. If the OT deity provides an escape clause for himself then he is hypocritical, or else his impetuousness demonstrates frustration at his own incompetence in failing to get it right the first time. Why give your own created humans “free will” then punish them when they exercise it? The “evidence for creation” shows that the creator is a bumbling incompetent with a particular love of beetles.
As you probably gather I don't believe any of it to be true anyway. My personal opinion is that such a sky-friend, brutal, incompetent or whatever, is imaginary.
Stuart
Nick, it would be ridiculous for anyone to get angry at the imaginary friends of others and I think you are spinning what I've written round to a believer's point of view. What I write about your man-made sky fairy is hypothetical – can you see that?
What does upset me is when fundamentalist christians lie about the achievements of science and then accuse scientists of having a hidden agenda, while taking their material from an “infalible” book of historical fiction.
Stuart
It seems when discussing the theory of evolution with people, they get stuck in the ape transitions and the drawings they've been show by “scientists.” Proof enough.
It's better and easier to cut through all that, and go to the beginning. Everything they've ever known had a beginning. The Bible says the universe had a beginning. Science finally caught up in the last century and realized that the universe had a beginning. The question science doesn't care to consider is: why? why is there anything when there could be nothing? There used to be nothing. And then, suddenly, for some reason, or for no reason, as some would argue, the universe came into being. Everything from nothing. Seems a magic trick. It seems too that for every effect, there is a cause. It's one of the laws of thermodynamics. What or who caused the universe to come to be? Science tells us that there should be a cause. But there was nothing there to cause it. Quite troubling. Quite.We know that humans are imperfect, make mistakes.
There certainly have been mistakes made on both sides.Nowhere does the Bible teach that the universe is a few thousand years old, nor the earth. If we check our dictionaries, we find that one meaning of the word day is “epoch”, a great stretch of time where important things happened. “day” has several meanings, even today. 'In my grandfathers day' is a reference to many many years of time.
But, just as those same religions have practiced wrong things, they have also taught wrong things, AS JESUS FORTOLD.On the other side,
There have been too many times where someone put a monkey body to a human skull and called it a missing link and put it in there museum for half centuries, before these mistakes are corrected.
Just as some want the Bible to be true, many want evolution to be true, and so much so that they are willing to make spectacular finds, even when there are none. I know how biology class works. To be recognized, to become accomplished, to get the right marks, etc, all depends on you getting the right answers, the right results. If you conduct an experiment, your proff already knows what the result should be. You have to get that result. If you don't play along, you will never be taken seriously. In biology, we would often fudge our numbers, make things fit, along with the rest of the class, to find the correct answers.
In that field, “evolution” is the correct answer everyone must get.Yet, we know there are tons of scientists who don't believe in evolution.
I'd like to mention the vast array of species. Yes, species come and go.
There are pitbulls. Saint bernards, korgies, terriers.
But they are all dogs, they are all the same “kind” that the flood account refers to.
They may have all come from the wolf, but they are all the same kind of animal.
Humans have great variety as well. Different temperments, etc. Yet, they are all the same kind of creature, they are all humankind.Hi David
++”It seems when discussing the theory of evolution with people, they get stuck in the ape transitions and the drawings they've been show by “scientists.” “
We are apes and we have ape ancestors. Are you denying this?
++’The Bible says the universe had a beginning. Science finally caught up in the last century and realized that the universe had a beginning.”
Does science borrow from mythology? Possibly. Does the bible give any useful knowledge on the big bang? No.
++” the universe came into being. Everything from nothing. Seems a magic trick. It seems too that for every effect, there is a cause. It's one of the laws of thermodynamics.
To which of the Laws of Thermodynamics are you referring?
++”What or who caused the universe to come to be? Science tells us that there should be a cause. But there was nothing there to cause it. Quite troubling. Quite.”
I’m sorry for your trouble, but if you know it, please give us a detailed account of the nature of the matter/energy present just before the big bang.
++”We know that humans are imperfect, make mistakes.
There certainly have been mistakes made on both sides.”Both sides of what?
++”Nowhere does the Bible teach that the universe is a few thousand years old, nor the earth. If we check our dictionaries, we find that one meaning of the word day is “epoch”…”
Thank you for clearing that up. I assume you are happy that the order of creation events as depicted in Genesis is the opposite to what the evidence says. You are comfortable that plants were created an “epoch” before the sun? That there was evening and morning, “epochs” before the existence of the sun?
++”There have been too many times where someone put a monkey body to a human skull and called it a missing link and put it in there museum for half centuries, before these mistakes are corrected.”
I am pleased that you acknowledge that science has a self-correction mechanism. What a shame religions don’t.
++”Just as some want the Bible to be true, many want evolution to be true, and so much so that they are willing to make spectacular finds, even when there are none. I know how biology class works. To be recognized, to become accomplished, to get the right marks, etc, all depends on you getting the right answers, the right results. If you conduct an experiment, your proff (sic) already knows what the result should be. You have to get that result. If you don't play along, you will never be taken seriously. In biology, we would often fudge our numbers, make things fit, along with the rest of the class, to find the correct answers.
In that field, “evolution” is the correct answer everyone must get.Evidence for this? It is a bare-faced lie. Do you actually know anything about the nature of science? This flies in the face of the competitive nature of research and the huge coup it would be for a young scientist to really destroy evolution. Do you think there is a correlation between bible belief and conspiracy belief? I think there could be.
++”Yet, we know there are tons of scientists who don't believe in evolution.
Choosing only from those who do not already insist that their holy book knows best, name 20.
++”I'd like to mention the vast array of species. Yes, species come and go.
There are pitbulls. Saint bernards, korgies, terriers.
But they are all dogs, they are all the same “kind” that the flood account refers to.
They may have all come from the wolf, but they are all the same kind of animal.
Humans have great variety as well. Different temperments, etc. Yet, they are all the same kind of creature, they are all humankind. “So what?
Since you mention the alleged flood, can you please explain to me how the pair (or seven pairs) of Kiwi got safely from Mt. Ararat to New Zealand, leaving no trail of their existence in any other country?Stuart
Hi Stu.
Quote (Stu @ July 24 2007,21:08) I can’t agree that your analogy shows the limits of science. Science is as limited as humans are in general. There are some pretty bright scientists out there, remember! “Who baked the cake” doesn’t really explain anything, does it?
But you obviously love science and yet you never asked who created the cosmos.That is the limitation right there.
There are deeper questions that science never asks.
Look at Cyberspace. Every bit of it is created and yet there you have dna source code for every web page, app, and object and even viruses too. Perhaps in the future even AI. But there is no way that such a construct can come into existence without a designer. Now I am talking about Cyberspace, which is nothing compared the complexity of Real space.
If you say to me that the Universe came into existence through a big bang and then lumps in the background radiation or fabric of time and space in the form of exotic, dark, and normal matter clumped together and with the laws of relatitvity and quantum we get the galaxies, then you are only giving me the recipe. You have completely neglected to ask “who made it?”.
That is the point. It really had nothing to do with chocolate cake. I care nothing about chocolate cakes, really. OK, I care a bit.
Quote (Stu @ July 24 2007,21:08) There are some pretty bright scientists out there, remember!
Is Sir Isaac Newton bright enough for you?He believed in God too.
Science and faith worked in harmony for him.
Newton's study of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were among his greatest passions. He devoted more time to the study of the Scriptures, the Fathers, and to Alchemy than to science, and said, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
