Goddit versus Evolution

[calamity]

who why what?

you forgot where. My guess is in water.

 

[Bodi]

you forgot where. My guess is in water.

I didn't forget where... I was trying not to overwhelm you.

 

[calamity]

I didn't forget where... I was trying not to overwhelm you.

The when is probably a billion years ago.

The why is probably due to the fact that opposite sex couples reproducing provides better genetic variation in offspring because asymmetrical sexual reproduction is expensive, as we all know.

The where has to be in water...given the time period.

The what would be environmental pressures of some kind leading to asymmetrical sexual breeding gaining some sort of advantage over other options.

There is no who.

 

[Bodi]

The when is probably a billion years ago.

The why is probably due to the fact that opposite sex couples reproducing provides better genetic variation in offspring because asymmetrical sexual reproduction is expensive, as we all know.

The where has to be in water...given the time period.

The what would be environmental pressures of some kind leading to asymmetrical sexual breeding gaining some sort of advantage over other options.

There is no who.

/woah... **** just got deep.

 

[calamity]

/woah... **** just got deep.

Actually it might have happened in shallow waters.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Who made the first man and woman then??

Their parents.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Actually it might have happened in shallow waters.

Rock pools.

 

[Bodi]

Rock pools.

of hot mud...

 

[calamity]

Rock pools.

Certainly someplace where multicellular creatures were bombarded with solar UV rays which mutated genes.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Certainly someplace where multicellular creatures were bombarded with solar UV rays which mutated genes.

With a twice daily refreshment of nutrients and removal of wastes!

 

[soylentgreen]

I think you're deliberately being obtuse.
We're done here....until you start discussing like a mature poster, or understand what you're reading.

Where as you taking all your information from a few lines in a faq and desperately trying to avoid the fact that the full article completely denies what you have asserted from a few lines and some guess work.

It is a case of you cannot be bothered to seek the truth because a few sentences already fit your preconceptions and actually doing the research might just burst your balloon.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'll let you have the last word on that one, I think most people know better and will see through this.
.

I have heard many examples of this, none convincing all with flaws. If you have something new present it.

Ditto. Now people know that you don't even know what the word evidence means.

Nonsense, that book containds no evidence of a god any more than a comic book contains evidence of superman.

That's not a definition, it's an example. Now you revealed you can't even tell when someone is giving you a definition and when they are giving you an example.

Semantics. Let us now say i have given you an example of why jesus is an allegory.

There are many ways that you can tell what kind of literature you are reading. I actually listed several other methods in the same post you lifted this one from. How you could think that this one was the definition and the others don't count is beyond me. Clearly there are many tools we use when determining what kind of literature we are looking at and giving one example about one specific situation is not synonymous with giving a definition or a comprehensive guide.

Yes you did but they were concerned with other than describing or as you say, giving an example of an allegory.

Btw, no one thinks Jesus caused manna to rain from heaven. You also seem to have revealed the fact you aren't even familiar with the content of the books you are criticizing.

Technicality, he fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and some fish. I understand that you are trying to be pedantic in order to avoid the fact that jesus fits well into your description of an allegory.

The ones that are historical narrative

None of them are a historical narrative. They are all stories that have some historical placing. What you are saying then also means that because there are parts of melvilles book that accurately give a historical mention of whaling then moby dick must be a real whale and captain ahab a real person.

You musty be able to do better than refer to a fictional account that have factual places or events in them must be be treated as if they were real. if so then sherlock holmes is real.

 

[calamity]

I have heard many examples of this, none convincing all with flaws. If you have something new present it.


Nonsense, that book containds no evidence of a god any more than a comic book contains evidence of superman.



Semantics. Let us now say i have given you an example of why jesus is an allegory.

Yes you did but they were concerned with other than describing or as you say, giving an example of an allegory.

Technicality, he fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and some fish. I understand that you are trying to be pedantic in order to avoid the fact that jesus fits well into your description of an allegory.


None of them are a historical narrative. They are all stories that have some historical placing. What you are saying then also means that because there are parts of melvilles book that accurately give a historical mention of whaling then moby dick must be a real whale and captain ahab a real person.

You musty be able to do better than refer to a fictional account that have factual places or events in them must be be treated as if they were real. if so then sherlock holmes is real.

Maybe if Jesus had slain a dragon instead of walked on water they'd more readily see the allegory. :lol:

 

[Chen]

The world as we know it exist only 5,000 years, do you know why ?

 

[zyzygy]

Maybe if Jesus had slain a dragon instead of walked on water they'd more readily see the allegory. :lol:

The idea of 'Infancy Gospels', that is stories of Jesus's life that never made it into the official Bible, is controversial, but some of the tales of Jesus's childhood told in these works make surprising reading. Some versions of Christ's life claim that as a child, He vanquished dragons, exploded snakes and killed a boy who accidentally brushed against him.

'Mary dismounted from her beast, and sat down with the child Jesus in her bosom. And there were with Joseph three boys, and with Mary a girl, going on the journey along with them. And, lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.'
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 18

 

[zyzygy]

The world as we know it exist only 5,000 years, do you know why ?

Because it's not true?

 

[tosca1]

First of all, the Iliad was not written for entertainment. It was written as an account of the events which were believed to have happened in a particular place and time. Research now shows that they were probably right in much of it.

But the the Iliad is just one book, believed to have been written by one author , and the Bible is a collection, an anthology, of many books written by many different authors, about events happening at different places and times. One feature that all of these, as well as many other ancient accounts, share, is the ancients' propensity to assign all sorts of other worldly entities and meanings to great current events of their time. Whether it's one place or many just seems to me to be a difference of degrees, not any fundamental difference of kind.

I'm not going to entertain your attempt to compare the Iliad with the Bible - since there is no comparing the two. Comparing the two shows utter ignorance of the Bible, and the dynamics why these two are not comparable.


The Iliad was recited for entertainment!

Troy is believed to have fallen around 1184 BC and The Iliad and Odyssey were not written down until c.800-700 BC, so although they are based on vaguely real historical events and actual historical characters, they are events that transpired hundreds of years before the author even lived; they are history that has morphed into mythology.

We still say they were written by the blind poet Homer, but that’s as much myth as the stories themselves; there’s really no reason to believe that a man named Homer ever wrote any of these stories, or that he was blind. We can assume that this is a compilation of various oral tales and that much of the narration describes what Greek life and warfare was like in 750 BCE, not 1184 BCE.





The Iliad: The Iliad tells the final chapter in the story of two major Bronze Age “Greek” alliances battling each other. It ends when the Achaeans (people mainly from what we now call Greece) sack Troy/Ilium (located in modern day Turkey). It's a long, meandering epic, but it primarily revolves around the "godlike Achilles'" struggle to confront his hubris and become humanized.

Both in scope and type, consider the Trojan war as similar to that between different European factions in WWI and WWII, or between the North and South in the American Civil War: this was a seminal, history-shaping event, and an intra-cultural war: a war fought among people of the same basic culture; although the two sides are protected by different gods, all the gods belong to the same basic pantheon or family of what we now call "Greek gods".

The Odyssey, in contrast, mainly takes place outside of that common culture and describes contact with pre-Mycenaean Mediterranean cultures. The story focuses on Odysseus and his family's struggle to recover from the Trojan war's after effects and, primarily, with Odysseus struggle to make it back home. So The Iliad describes the clash between two equally brilliant and beautiful groups of “Greeks”, and The Odyssey describes contact with the “Other”, represented as monsters and witches.



While the Jews gave Western culture its religious foundation, the Greeks gave us our culture, the parts of our lives we don't even notice because it is the very air we breath – our sense of heroism, of the individual, of the individuals relationship to others, or our very means of expressing our emotions and the way we tell stories.

Jewish stories opened our way of conceptualizing God, but the Greeks gave us our way of thinking about ourselves as human beings. The word for this is "humanism" or Greek Humanism.

The Iliad and Odyssey

 

[sear]

"I'm not going to entertain your attempt to compare the Iliad with the Bible - since there is no comparing the two." t1 #292

Do or do not as you wish.
They are both respected contributions to classic literature.

And such accounts of events of that period that coincide can provide insight into the actual events of those days.

If you accept the Holy Bible as the exact word of god, and any conflicting account to be in error, that's fine.

But for those with inquisitive, sincere, open minds, that find truth where it resides, and not where (and what) they wish to find it; no objective examination of history is off-limits.

 

[CrabCake]

Have you ever read Homer's epic poem The Iliad? It is about the fabled city of Troy, and the Greek invasion of that city. Up until the late 19th century, it was always thought to just be a story with no basis in historical fact. But a German archeologist, a retired businessman with a lifelong fascination in the poem, used clues from within the poem itself to finally find the site of the city. It was exactly where the poem said it might be. Archeological analysis, including carbon-dating, has found evidence of soot in the historical layer dating to about 1100 BC, exactly when the poem said these events might have happened. That's incredible objective vindication that the poem is not just a story, or an allegory, or something Homer just may have made up. Something was definitely there and some bad stuff really did happen there, when the poem says they happened.

But the poem also tells us that the Sea God Poseidon was on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans. Should we believe this too now as objective evidence of Poseidon's existence and his views on the Greek/Trojan conflict?

I haven't attempted to claim that the fact the bible contains historical narrative is evidence of the veracity of its religious claims.

 

[tosca1]

Where as you taking all your information from a few lines in a faq and desperately trying to avoid the fact that the full article completely denies what you have asserted from a few lines and some guess work.

It is a case of you cannot be bothered to seek the truth because a few sentences already fit your preconceptions and actually doing the research might just burst your balloon.

If you understand the booklet that you claimed to have read, you'd understand that you're insisting on a different issue.

The NAS had given their views on THEISTIC EVOLUTION - and you keep harping about creationism (which the NAS has clearly defined as Genesis-based creationism)!


What good is reading the booklet, Soylentgreen.....if you don't understand it anyway. So, spare me the bull.

 

[sear]

"I haven't attempted to claim that the fact the bible contains historical narrative is evidence of the veracity of its religious claims." CC #295

BUT !!

a) We have PROOF that some of it is.
For perhaps most obvious example, in the late '60's archeologists found a lost city in the desert, unknown to living memory. It's mentioned in the Holy Bible.

b) It could not POSSIBLY be considered candidate for truth if it portrayed events in Narnia, or Never-never land. So there is at least plausible ambiguity.

c) Any good propagandist knows, the most persuasive lie is the one laced with truth.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not going to entertain your attempt to compare the Iliad with the Bible - since there is no comparing the two.

They are both accounts of large events in the ancient world, with a healthy dose of other-worldly entities thrown in, as the ancients were wont to do. The Iliad was about a very long, bloody war- with archeological evidence of its veracity now almost certain. Something like the story of the great flood in the story of Noah is probably the same: there is some evidence for something like this having happened in the ancient near middle east as well, with many stories about this appearing in the mythologies and stories of tribes other than the Israelite tribe (like the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh), with otherworldly meanings and deities thrown in just like in the Israelite story.

While the Jews gave Western culture its religious foundation, the Greeks gave us our culture, the parts of our lives we don't even notice because it is the very air we breath – our sense of heroism, of the individual, of the individuals relationship to others, or our very means of expressing our emotions and the way we tell stories.

Jewish stories opened our way of conceptualizing God, but the Greeks gave us our way of thinking about ourselves as human beings. The word for this is "humanism" or Greek Humanism.

That sounds like an awful lot more than something read for entertainment. I have read that western civilization stands on two feet: on the one hand you have the ancient pagan Greek civilization, and the other is the ancient Israelite civilization. These twin roots of western civilization have sometimes been complimentary, and sometimes in conflict. But you can't privilege one over the other, and say that one was read just for entertainment and its appeal to otherworldly entities should not be taken seriously, and the other was talking about real otherworldly entities. They are both important parts of the heritage of western civilization, as are their gods.

Interesting fun fact: did you know that the Christian word for god, the latin word "Deus", comes from the Greek Zeus? The Romans took it from the Greeks, and when Rome became Christian, the word stayed.

 

[tosca1]

Do or do not as you wish.
They are both respected contributions to classic literature.

And such accounts of events of that period that coincide can provide insight into the actual events of those days.

If you accept the Holy Bible as the exact word of god, and any conflicting account to be in error, that's fine.

But for those with inquisitive, sincere, open minds, that find truth where it resides, and not where (and what) they wish to find it; no objective examination of history is off-limits.

You can examine anything all you want.....who's stopping anyone?
But that still doesn't take away from the fact that the two are not comparable!

 

[soylentgreen]

If you understand the booklet that you claimed to have read, you'd understand that you're insisting on a different issue.

The NAS had given their views on THEISTIC EVOLUTION - and you keep harping about creationism (which the NAS has clearly defined as Genesis-based creationism)!


What good is reading the booklet, Soylentgreen.....if you don't understand it anyway. So, spare me the bull.

I am getting tired of your lies. You obviously have not bothered to read the booklet otherwise you would not be keeping up this lame cherry picking of yours. What is even more annoying is that your argument is based on the assumption that every one will be as lazy as you and not bother to read the booklet.
So allow me to mark out the specific parts that if you had read the booklet would make it obvious just what **** you are talking,

The words you depend on " theistic Evolution " is followed by these statements.

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."
There are no valid scientific data or calculations to substantiate the belief that Earth was created just a few thousand years ago......
Nor is there any evidence that the entire geological record, with its orderly succession of fossils, is the product of a single universal flood that occurred a few thousand years ago, lasted a little longer than a year, and covered the highest mountains to a depth of several meters.......
The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

While you cherry pick the whole chapter for two words the rest of that chapter goes on to point out what garbage your creationist belief is. Do please note the bit in bold which correctly sums up your view, " evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible." ie. you only looking at two words and making preposterous claims from them.

Do not lie to me and tell me you have read the booklet. I understand perfectly just how desperate people like you are to give scientific validity to a childish fairy tale that no one with the ability to read would actually buy into.

 

[tosca1]

I am getting tired of your lies. You obviously have not bothered to read the booklet otherwise you would not be keeping up this lame cherry picking of yours. What is even more annoying is that your argument is based on the assumption that every one will be as lazy as you and not bother to read the booklet.
So allow me to mark out the specific parts that if you had read the booklet would make it obvious just what **** you are talking,

The words you depend on " theistic Evolution " is followed by these statements.


While you cherry pick the whole chapter for two words the rest of that chapter goes on to point out what garbage your creationist belief is. Do please note the bit in bold which correctly sums up your view, " evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible." ie. you only looking at two words and making preposterous claims from them.

Do not lie to me and tell me you have read the booklet. I understand perfectly just how desperate people like you are to give scientific validity to a childish fairy tale that no one with the ability to read would actually buy into.

You may have read the booklet, but you didn't understand what you've read.


The fact too, that you're ignoring the quotes I gave were taken from NASA (space program), and yet you insist that it was me who cherry-picked, shows that you're the one being dishonest in your attempt to rebutt...... or your logic is warped.

You don't get it why NASA quoted those parts from the NAS!



And yes, this statement......

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

There are no valid scientific data or calculations to substantiate the belief that Earth was created just a few thousand years ago......
Nor is there any evidence that the entire geological record, with its orderly succession of fossils, is the product of a single universal flood that occurred a few thousand years ago, lasted a little longer than a year, and covered the highest mountains to a depth of several meters.......

The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world.

Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

....followed this statement:

Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

WHY? Because,

the NAS is showing the contrast between Theistic Evolution and Creationists (Genesis-related creationism).

NAS is saying that there are scientific evidence to support theistic evolution (and the science disciplines that revealed them are mentioned), but no scientific evidence supports creationism (special creation).



If you can't understand the contrast between the two - what more can I say? :shrug: