|
|
|
derek
New Member
4 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2008 : 20:48:04
|
hey i believe in creationism. i was checking out your site. i totally support skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic. i noticed the use of verses of the Bible in one of your articles.
deutoronomy and that chunk of the bible was written as laws for the jews before christ was crucified. near all of those no longer apply for today's christians. and most of the old testament is stories. i believe them to be real. but i don't look to someone's life story and follow it to the t.
psalms and isaiah are poems. i don't expect logical people to look for scientific fact in song lyrics.
and then i saw a couple from revelation which is not to be taken literally. it is extremely metaphorical.
i don't want to attack.i just wanted to add to the discussions. i know you guys think i'm an idiot. but hey its all good.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2008 : 23:31:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
and then i saw a couple from revelation which is not to be taken literally. it is extremely metaphorical. |
So do you believe the whole "God created the earth in 7 days" to be metaphorical?
|
Apparently Derek has developed some system for telling. I join those encouraging him to come back and explain it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2008 : 04:36:20 [Permalink]
|
Hi derek and welcome to SFN!
May I ask; are you a ypung earth creationist or an old-earther kile Hugh Ross?
Either way, 's ok -- looking forward to your input.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
derek
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 09:30:08 [Permalink]
|
im a young earth creationist. and i was referring to the bad fruits. the quotes were mostly used from stories of people. and any chritian can tell you people were just as messed up then as now.
but in reference to revelation. i believe there's a reason it was written this book was written so weird.
the book was written to tell about the rapture and all that craziness and if everyone was told what day to be saved, i think everyone would just wait it out until they HAD to become saved. kind of like doing your homework 5 min. before its due. God wants those who are willing and not just fearful or just buying a ticket to heaven. He wants a relationship.
and because they were written by two different people in two different eras we should interpret them in different manners
and what do you guys believe? do you believe in the immaterial? God? supernatural? |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 10:16:40 [Permalink]
|
| deutoronomy and that chunk of the bible was written as laws for the jews before christ was crucified. near all of those no longer apply for today's christians. and most of the old testament is stories. i believe them to be real. but i don't look to someone's life story and follow it to the t. |
Except that it is said nowhere that it does no longer apply.
Indeed, quite a few Christian still use it to call homosexuality an 'abomination'.
The main question is, if you start picking and choosing, the Bible becomes useless as a guide and you are living your life the way you'd do it without the Bible, just using a few quotes when convenient.
As for creationism...
First of all the Bible contains two different account for creation. People have tried, laboriously, to reconcile the two but it is not very convincing, I think and beg the question: why, if the Bible is the given word of God would it there any need for such an effort. Couldn't God be bothered to proof-read his own work?
Second, when you think about it rationally, the Genesis contains a lot of bit that make no sense.
For example, where did all the water from the flood come from? Where did it go?
How was Noah able to build a boat of such dimensions? Even after centuries of experience, using tools and knowledge unavailable to Noah; such as reinforcing the wood with steel beams; no wooden ship that large were ever build in recorded history. Wood just do not have the resistance to be stretched over such distance. Not to mention, the ship would have had to survive very bad water.
Then, how did he get two of several of the millions of living species of animal in his boat? What about their food? What about species inhabiting other continents, did he travel there? What about species that could not survive under such climate (polar bears)
How did they survive after the flood recessed, on a planet were all terrestrial plant life had been drowned? How did the animals go back to their distant continents on the other side of the planet? Why did they do it and did not settle locally?
'Scientific' creationists have tried to explain these things but, frankly, they are not convincing by any stretch. They have to make-up many elements that neither the Bible or modern-science contain any clues of (an ice sheet surrounding the earth... that's... interesting, you'd imagine that it would have been mentioned in Genesis, maybe?).
If you are thick-skinned; you can have a look at Thunderfoot's Why do people laugh at creationists. Be warned, it might be a bit aggressive, but he also brings many great factual analysis debunking creationist claims.
On the other hand, the text bears many off the hallmark of a classical creation myth. One that would have been heavily influenced by Babylonian cosmology (the vault of the heaven) and culture (the epic of Gilgamesh). Interestingly, analysing the style of the writing of the Genesis suggest that it was written in a form of the language that was used by Israelites at the time of the Babylonian exile (I learned that here). The Babylonian influence makes a lot of sense then.
At contrario, modern science has a good idea about the origin of the solar system and the theory of evolution is about the most solid scientific theory imaginable (Here is a short explanation about what theory means in Science, in short, the 'Evolution is just a theory' argument is disingenuous).
There is a great overview about the theory of evolution and a nice debunking of most of the creationist/IDist 'argument' on the talk origin website.
While we have a pretty clear of where the solar system comes from and while the theory of evolution as an explanation of how live diversified is as close as a certitude as science ever allows, there is still plenty left to learn.
For example, where do life come from and how did non-living chemistry give rise to primitive life-forms is still unclear. The theory is called abiogeneis and it is distinct from the theory of evolution.
Yet, even in this recent dicipline, many progress have been made, they are summarized in Potholer54's The origin of Life made easy. He also has many other video on other scientific subject and I recommend every one of them.
And, it must be pointed that all these explanations are coherent between each other. Geology; astrophysics; radio-chemistry; palaeontology; genetics; biochemistry and so many other... all independently draw the same consistent picture.
Really, I have trouble understanding what of all these leaves you unconvinced. Maybe you could go through the links I gave you and come back to me if you have any questions? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 10:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by derek
the quotes were mostly used from stories of people. and any chritian can tell you people were just as messed up then as now. |
Sure, but objecting to the article on that basis misses the point of the article. It's point was that it's just as easy to "quote-mine" the Bible as it is for creationists to quote-mine biologists about evolution, to make it look like it promotes all these horrible ideologies and practices.
Of course, if the Bible is true, then God really did condone slavery and order genocides.
Evolutionary theory doesn't condone or demand anything.| and what do you guys believe? do you believe in the immaterial? God? supernatural? |
The immaterial exists in all of us, in the form of ideas. God and the supernatural, not at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 10:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by derek
im a young earth creationist. and i was referring to the bad fruits. the quotes were mostly used from stories of people. and any chritian can tell you people were just as messed up then as now. |
The Bible's Bad Fruits opens with this:
| Just like cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes from biologists can be abused so as to paint the Theory of Evolution as evil, so can the same abuse be heaped upon the Bible. |
What Tommy and Dawn did in that article was to turn an old creationist trick back on them. We get very tired of seeing quotes by scientists, removed from their proper context to support an idea that the quoted scientists does not suggest or support. Another trick is to use very outdated quotes, still taken out of the context, to support the idea that even the scientists find that what we know about evolution to be deeply flawed.
The late Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, even wrote a book called That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, filled with out of context quotes used to support a position never intended by the scientists, which is made obvious if you see the quotes in there proper context.
Turn about is fair play. But really, since Tommy and Dawn stated their reason for pulling quotes from the bible, it should be clear to the reader that what they are demonstrating is that two can play at that game, but more to the point, the game is a dishonest one.
Derek:
and what do you guys believe? do you believe in the immaterial? God? supernatural?
|
I doubt all of the above based on the lack evidence to support the existence of anything outside of nature. Doubt is the skeptical position when evidence is found to be lacking or non-existent.
And let me add to you my welcome to SFN. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 11:06:48 [Permalink]
|
| You shouldn't take Genesis literally either, you know. Especially since it's pretty much contradicted by observed reality. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 12:48:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by derek
im a young earth creationist. and i was referring to the bad fruits. the quotes were mostly used from stories of people. and any chritian can tell you people were just as messed up then as now. |
The Bible's Bad Fruits opens with this:
| Just like cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes from biologists can be abused so as to paint the Theory of Evolution as evil, so can the same abuse be heaped upon the Bible. |
What Tommy and Dawn did in that article was to turn an old creationist trick back on them. We get very tired of seeing quotes by scientists, removed from their proper context to support an idea that the quoted scientists does not suggest or support. Another trick is to use very outdated quotes, still taken out of the context, to support the idea that even the scientists find that what we know about evolution to be deeply flawed.
The late Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research, even wrote a book called That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, filled with out of context quotes used to support a position never intended by the scientists, which is made obvious if you see the quotes in there proper context.
Turn about is fair play. But really, since Tommy and Dawn stated their reason for pulling quotes from the bible, it should be clear to the reader that what they are demonstrating is that two can play at that game, but more to the point, the game is a dishonest one.
Derek:
and what do you guys believe? do you believe in the immaterial? God? supernatural?
|
I doubt all of the above based on the lack evidence to support the existence of anything outside of nature. Doubt is the skeptical position when evidence is found to be lacking or non-existent.
And let me add to you my welcome to SFN.
|
But there is a main difference between the two.
Scientists never claimed to be anything but human. As such, they can always be wrong, confused, or misspeak.
The Bible is claimed to be the integral word of God, so, no such leniency can be applied. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 14:39:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by derek
psalms and isaiah are poems. i don't expect logical people to look for scientific fact in song lyrics.
|
Why not? scientific facts can be found in the most unusual places.
But as for songs, why not have a look at the lyrics from the They Might Be Giants-song "Why Does the Sun Shine?"
The Sun is a mass
of incandescent gas;
a gigantic nuclear furnace,
where Hydrogen in built into Helium
at temperatures of millions of degrees.
Did I mention that I really like They Might Be Giants?
They may not be elite musicians, but they sure know how to write music that inspires.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
derek
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 17:55:32 [Permalink]
|
you guys have good points. how does genesis contradict EVERYTHING. that is a pretty general statement. i think as far as what you call "religion" its more explanatory than any other belief. for instance babel gives a reason for such a difference in cultures and language. thats the only one off the top of my head.
the song thing is cool. but just because it CAN does not mean it DOES all the time. to gain knowledge you read a report or a study of what occurred. you cannot look at the bible as a biology textbook.
i can understand the "random out of context quotes" but how you read something depends on what you learn from it. if i read lord of the rings or someone's biography and live my life according to it i would be irrational and crazy.
and does the story of noahs ark debunk ALL of creationist ideas? i wanted to see some more clear concise layman explanations of why evolution is more fitting. i grazed over the Polonium and moon articles and didn't get any direct information. thanks.
and the comments on immaterial and ideas and God. i wanted to pose something. in dna there are actg codes that tell cells how and what to produce so they can function. how do you explain the "message" forming from natural processes? it's immaterial. how can material form immaterial by chance? if i had a newspaper and described it to you using the processes of chemical bonds of paper and ink and whatever, you still don't have the immaterial information and knowledge needed to comprehend english and then to read it. i wanted to see what you think... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 18:44:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by derek
i think as far as what you call "religion" its more explanatory than any other belief. for instance babel gives a reason for such a difference in cultures and language. |
It offers an explanation, but is it the correct explanation? Noah's Ark offers an explanation for the presence of rainbows, but what we know about optics renders the Bible's explanation as simple-minded and rather uninteresting. Likewise, the Tower of Babel story is pat and pretty boring when compared to the complex diffusion of humans and language that we know occurred over many thousands of years.| and the comments on immaterial and ideas and God. i wanted to pose something. in dna there are actg codes that tell cells how and what to produce so they can function. how do you explain the "message" forming from natural processes? it's immaterial. |
The "message" is by no means "immaterial," it is entirely due to chemical reactions. There is no intent to pass along information, it is a blind and fully mechanical process. Ribosomes don't "understand" that they are "translating" a "code" into "proteins," no more than a clock "understands" what time it is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2008 : 20:34:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by derek
i can understand the "random out of context quotes" but how you read something depends on what you learn from it. if i read lord of the rings or someone's biography and live my life according to it i would be irrational and crazy.
|
I think how you read something determines what you learn/gain/get from it. Let's take the Bible for instance and the different effect it has on those who read it through the eye of faith versus those who read it through the eye of reason.
Ben Franklin said, "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Simply stated you can seek your truth by either reason or faith, but not both. Faith allows you to reach conclusions based on the judgement of others regardless of available evidence. Once a faith conclusion has been reached evidence to the contrary is typically dismissed as wrong.
Reason is used to reach conclusions based on available evidence. Reading the Bible through the eye of reason when a question arises concerning any part of it then the person reading it this way would seek out independent sources to verify its content. As has been pointed out before the story of Noah's Ark doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it is a logistical nightmare.
I guess I'll end here.
edited to add: I'd also like to add, Welcome to SFN derek. I hope you enjoy it. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 12/11/2008 20:37:54 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Creationist here
