Genesis v. Evolution

[Nicolas]

Would you now like to address the more difficult to dismiss probability that Genesis 1 was purposefully structured in this manner to actually reveal something about the Tree Of Life (which is, as I have shown, a de facto architectural model of the human organism), and therefore evolution (i.e. Creation)?RMT

I can't do that! Mainly because I had no clue such a thing existed. Also, I wouldn't try to, since I do agree with you when you say:

Now' date=' you seem to have taken the position that Genesis 1 is NOT conveying knowledge about evolution (i.e. Creation). Yet, I have shown you that clearly, it does, [b']when[/b] you avail yourself back to the basics of the original Hebrew letters/language

Which is exactly what I've been trying to say since the beginning. The Bible, as is, doesn't comply with reality. Well, at least when you compare Genesis with evolution.Which is a very different argument than "Ignore what's written in Genesis in your King James version and go straight back to its original language and look at it through the Qabalistic "Tree of life". Only then it will match evolution." And it does, as you have shown!

And in the above, you are selecting the easier of the two probabilities to dismiss. Namely, that someone took the words of Genesis 1 after the fact and "forcibly" aligned them to the Tree Of Life.

Didn't me to do that though. I understand that you have your reasons to believe that the tree of life came first, and that's fine. I can accept that.But, like I said, the original thread was more like this: "The Bible by itself doesn't match evolutionary history." I even quoted the text from the King James version and pointed out exactly what and where it's wrong. It's written there. In the Bible. Whales came before land mammals. This statement is wrong.

Is it not?

That is the point I've been trying to make.

 

[RainmanTime]

That is the point I've been trying to make.

Let me see if I can probe some more to pin down exactly what you are claiming, or not claiming, as the case may be. Allow me to take this, your unmodified statement:

The Bible, as is, doesn't comply with reality. Well, at least when you compare Genesis with evolution.

and modify it a bit to see if you agree with the modifications, before we proceed with a further discussion:

The Bible' date=' as is, [b']in the English translation of King James Version,[/b] doesn't comply with reality. Well, at least when you compare chapters other than Genesis 1 with evolution.

I added the parts in bold underline. To help me understand exactly what you are claiming, tell me if you agree or disagree with my modifications. If that clearly represents your statement, then I will agree. If your claim goes beyond that, we potentially have more to discuss.RMT

 

[mr_paradox]

What is interesting is that in the theory of evolution it follows closely to the account in Genesis. The original creates in Genesis are created in the sea, and then evenutally they appear on land and then humans appear last. The 7 days account in the Bibles does not mean 7 24 hour days, but 7 of God's days. The Bible specifies that God days are a lot longer then human days.

The Bible's Genesis myth originates from the Babylonians and appears in other easter religions. So technically it is not Christian/Jewish but an almost universal myth. It is similar to the great flood myths.

 

[Gpa]

Thank you RainmanTime and Thank you Cosmo. Fine job.

Ok, are we ready to play?

Let's review.

1st. Thomas pendrake made an innocent enough comment;

There are multiple creation myths (not a bad word' date=' by the way) in the Bible, read the one in the Gospel of John. The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory. For a mature understanding of the nature of myth, read Hamlet's Mill.[/quote']2nd. aboleth_lich attacked Christians and anyone else that may believe in creation, even in some oblique way. He immediately labeled religion as "bad religion"; ( "Parts" of ALL religions are incompatible with "parts" of science)

When specific religious myths and beliefs are incompatible with and are disproven by modern hard science, as per the above examples: the bad religion label most certainly applies.

and goes on to describe what bad science is;

However, there is indeed "science" that can be rightfully labelled as "bad science." Junk "science" that is deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias, be it supposedly verifying creation myths as above, disproving the man-made contribution to climate change, etc, would indeed deserve the "bad science" label.

Interesting choice of words; "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias".That's the same perception, some actual real scientists, as opposed to "our largely ignorant ancestors?", see when they look at the "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias" DATA ,used as proof of AGW/ACC but, that's another argument.

3rd. Thomas pendrake presented "Kurt Godel's ontological proof."

4th. Nicolas made what could be considered a "smart ass" comment. Nicolas said it was irony in his post 15. Let the reader decide.

The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory.

lol, you wish.

5th. While replying to a reference by Milo.X. about weather;I asked Nicolas, an acknowledged atheist;

Have you read Genesis? Considering the level (what we believe it to be anyway) of scientific understanding at the time, it follows the evolutionary timeline quite well.

6th. Thomas pendrake acknowledged my comment;

Thank you, obviously you have also read Genesis. There are, of course, many people who have for some reason decided that only one particular way of interpreting "Jewish Myths and Fables" is acceptable, but that is precisely what both St. Peter and Saint Paul warned against.

7th. Nicolas responded to my query; "Have you read Genesis?"

I sure did sir!Here, let me quote it:

He quotes passages (in part) from Genesis chapter 1:11-24. Then, IMO, in a condescending manner, presented some of the standard atheist talking points for discussions involving religious belief. For brevity, I will only quote his closing statements.

If "d" is what relates the bible to darwinism, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. Specially if you read the whole thing from the start.I would look at the Scriptures as what it really is: the writings of bronze age, middle eastern tribesmen and their view of the world based on the technology they had access to. We can't rely on such a thing.

I suppose here, I could give a lesson on grammar, since I received one on scientific theory but, I doubt it's necessary. Perhaps he sees his mistake. I wonder, what are your qualifications to make the determination of "what it really is"?I'll be referring to these a little later.

8th. I posted, the first 10 passages from Genesis he left out so I could point out that the "light" he insisted must come before plants, came before plants.

a. Plants were made before the sun - How's that consistent with anything? Without the sun to drive their photosynthetic processes, there's no plants... but we all knew that.

(Let me take a moment for an apparently needed biology lesson. The "first land plants" did not use "photosynthesis". If you want more in depth information than that, go get a more in depth education in biology.)It was created on the first day. On the fourth day, when you claim it was created, it was given a designation.

(RainmanTime has already pointed this out with evidence,)

9th. Nicolas delved into semantics.

10th. I tried to explain my position. Tried to use a little sarcasm, which used an improper allusion, on which I was called out and given a lecture on scientific theory. Tried to use humor (unsuccessfully it would seem.) Pointed out that the Bible can not be taken in a literal form because compared to It's initial writhing, it is now out of context and has intentional misinterpretations brought about by both Church and Kings.

11th. Nicolas chastised me for not presenting my reasoning, evidence, proof, whatever, while dismissing the reasoning I "had" offered. This is also where I received a lecture on "learning something new today"... even though I understood it 30 years before he was born but, whatever. I didn't point out that he stated Boyle's Law incorrectly.

A little more semantics and a closing statement indicating that pretty much, nothing I say is acceptable proof...to him.

What the writers of Genesis got right about "creation" is the same anyone in their time would get: nothing. There's nothing that indicates that "some One" helped them, since they wrote exactly what we can expect of those tribesman to have written. There's nothing in there that jumps out as being timeless.

In the case there is and I missed it' date=' please do quote it here[/quote']It seems RainmanTime has but....12th. I defended my position on some wishing evolution could be a law;

"I argue that the most irritating term in evolution is the use of the phrase "theory of evolution", instead of "law of evolution". Why do biologists and paleontologists continue to paint a huge, flashing target on their profession by using the term "theory of evolution", i.e., inviting criticism by allowing creationist and anti-science opponents to focus on the word "theory"? There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, "law of evolution", which, etymologically speaking, would stop many (not all) arguments dead in their tracks."

I usually cite sources but, this time I won't. Google it and look it up for yourselves. There is some contradictory information in there for you, Nicolas, but I imagine you will somehow discount it.

I pointed out the absurdity of demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible by demonstrating Darwin's ideas could not be taken literally, since we had new evidence that he was "wrong" on several of his observations. If you want "proof of that", go to college and study it.

13th. Nicolas defended Dawkins, unsuccessfully, IMO. Admitted to confusion on the subject at hand, which is understandable. Nicolas indicated that my opinion on Genesis was...

I was only pointing out that there is a reasonable similarity between the timeline of evolution and Genesis, NOT EXACT... SIMILAR, which I still maintain

You keep saying that, but never actually point it out. What is this reasonable similarity? Really, what is it?Is it the fact that they divided the creation in seven steps? The fact that they "figured out" everything happened step-by-step and not one single event? Is this the similarity to evolution? I can see this making sense. It does have the faintest connection with evolution, if you really force it. This single phrase could have easily made the case for you before and spared you from that lecture.

This is it right? This is actually it! I think just developed a way to debate myself.

...Unacceptable.14th. I explained "Why" he was confused and would not understand it no matter how I explained it. Reaffirmed my position ,creation accounts were NOT EXACT".

15th.Thomas pendrake expressed his amazement that this was so hard to understand and pointed out how "he" had never intended it was a literal description.

16th. I pointed out that I had not presented certain scriptures as proof, but that Nicolas had already done so, I could only have been redundant and he would only restate the disagreement he already had with the Biblical accounts.

17th. Nicolas chose semantics as a way to claim I had denigrated "him" along with ALL atheists.

18th. I responded semantically to his points as well and pointed out his misconceptions.

19th. Finally, RainmanTime entered the conversation with his, Part 1, of well founded information. Information I had suggested earlier, but through lack of knowledge on the subject, was unable to inject.

20th. Thomas pendrake pointed out that we had still not entered into consideration of the ontological proof by Godel.

(I admit I can't because I'm not that familiar with it.)

21st. kimberlyd asked about the weather.

22nd Milo.X. asked for clarification on part of RainmanTime's information.

23rd. RainmanTime answered Milo.X. and offered Part 2 of his information.

24th. I thanked RainmanTime.

25th. aboleth_lich engaged in ontological discussion on the subject.

26th. I stated I found aboleth_lich's post to be verbose. Well, It is. I stated that I felt his logic was invalid and suggested, as an exercise in learning, he find it himself. It is possible "I" am incorrect, but I can't see his logic as it's worded. There is someone here that might be more qualified to decide that.

27th. Thomas pendrake again discussed Godel's proof and wondered about aboleth_lich's understanding of physics.

28th. aboleth_lich wondered why I didn't just tell him what his mistake might be. Pointed out that he felt Thomas pendrake and I were "mean" (I deduced that from the original five adjectives). Defended his education and finished with something along the line of, he didn't like how we played so he was going home.

29th. I replied to his criticism of my behavior by pointing out "Sheldon" and I were apparently similar in our inability to properly use sarcasm or be aware when we are being condescending toward someone. Kinda like maybe the lines just above these.

30th. Milo.X. continued his discussion with RainmanTime on the "plurality" of God.

31st. thomas pendrake "complimented" aboleth_lich on his education, but still wondered how he missed some important facts. He discussed "notable" scientists that he knew or believed were NOT atheists, and offered a suggestion to Milo.X. on the plurality question.

32nd. Darby admonished aboleth_lich and thomas pendrake for lowering themselves to engage in trivial arguments when "some" still wondered about the Earth being at the center of the solar system.

(I can't help but like Darby. He's "to the point". I have been corrected by him and I respect his opinions.)

33rd. Nicolas woke up and began by indicating he still does not understand ad hominem and apparently, does not recognize the grammatical mistake I referred to earlier, which I suggested he might figure out on his own. Although, he may be correct... in Brazil. He says he has seen a group of Christians surround a group of atheists and vehemently attack and denigrate them for their "non-belief". Eh.. maybe. There are idiots on both sides. He includes himself as having been attacked. I wonder if he considers this, one of those times?

He makes comparisons where no prior mention exists. He tries to slide around the information RainmanTime has presented even though the information presented by RainmanTime, " translation, multiple interpretations, aligning verses" is exactly what is required to understand this argument. We'll get back to this post.*

34th. RainmanTime responds to Nicolas' "dodge" with more valid understanding of the "original" text.

35th. Cosmo splits this discussion off from the "wrong" thread we took off track. I apologize to Milo.X.

36th. There are a few more posts, but following this review, I intend to start another new direction. Maybe tomorrow.

*Back to Nicolas' post

Good morning!Wow, what a productive weekend for everybody here!Anyway, lets get to it. Out of all the quoting of quoted quotations, I find the next one to be the one worth mentioned, since this thread has become a bit clogged, visually speaking.

I stated, I expected it. If it has happened before, has a history of occurring, expecting it to happen again and stating so, is not ad hominem.

Oh yeah it is. Specially because labeling me as this or that, had nothing to do with the original argument. We steered away from it because we couldn't kill it in the first few posts, which could've been easily done. Instead, we lost time establishing I'm the atheist that lacks all sort of skills to understand what a christian has to say about his faith.

"You" labeled yourself an atheist. I commented on what I have seen atheists do on numerous occasions. If it doesn't "fit you" why worry about it?

First' date=' I have never seen a group of Christians vehemently attack and ridicule a group of atheists, but I have witnessed, first hand, a group of atheists do just that to a group of Christians. Have you?[/quote']Heck yeah I have! Myself and basically all atheist I know. But see, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original question. Bringing this up and putting me in the group of people that has attacked you before, has exactly zero relevance to both sides of the argument.

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."

No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

No, I suppose, if we exclude these, you didn't.

I didn't ask you to prove to me your belief in Jesus, the Bible or God. I'll repeat, in my opinion, this is all irrelevant for what was being questioned here. In all of those quotes from me that you posted, I was asking for an explanation of how you came to the original conclusion. I just wanted to understand what you were saying. Not questioning your beliefs.

My post was concerning "you" asking me to prove/show/or whatever, why I believe "my position on Genesis". You keep inserting Jesus, God, and the Bible, not I.Very early on I said;

You have stated you are an atheist. Trying to convince you God exists and is responsible for the creation of the Universe, and everything in it, the Earth, Moon, Stars would be a good thing, in my mind, but, is not the goal of this discussion. I am simply pointing out the similarities in the Genesis account and evolution.You argue, it doesn't follow Darwinism. I said it follows evolution.

My comment...

Maybe it's for someone else just reading this and seeing, perhaps for the first time: "It does kinda fit". "There have been more accounts in Biblical history verified by archaeological discoveries". "What if the whole Book "is" true". Perhaps they find their faith and belief in God and find their salvation in Christ and their lives improve. Wouldn't it be interesting if "you" helped some one find the faith, you so easily disbelieve.

... is rhetorical.

Yep. That is what I have been trying to say.

Well, that was disappointing.

For more context;

On the other hand, the way I see you see this is that only the true believers of your faith are able to understand anything that's written in the Bible. If that's the case, well, then you're right: I'll never understand (different than believe) what you're saying.

Yep. That is what I have been trying to say.

I understand your disappointment.The rest is for RainmanTime and he has already responded to it.

 

[thomas pendrake]

What is interesting is that in the theory of evolution it follows closely to the account in Genesis. The original creates in Genesis are created in the sea, and then evenutally they appear on land and then humans appear last. The 7 days account in the Bibles does not mean 7 24 hour days, but 7 of God's days. The Bible specifies that God days are a lot longer then human days.The Bible's Genesis myth originates from the Babylonians and appears in other easter religions. So technically it is not Christian/Jewish but an almost universal myth. It is similar to the great flood myths.

The virtual universality of these myths (try the term archetypal ) is another argument for the existence of a god. And you mentioned the flood, which may well refer to the catastrophic rise in sea levels which occurred about 11,000 years ago. Of course, the flood bears more on questions relating to global warming than on the existence of a god, but it does reinforce that the myths of the old testament are not just stupid nonsense.I recommend that anyone interested in the origins of human knowledge read Hamlet's Mill .


The universal appearance of god images in human culture may not be a PROOF of the existence of a god, but it is a powerful hint.

Intellectual arguments can only lead to the type of Deism so common during the "enlightenment". whereas specific beliefs come from either faith or revelation (which I tend to distrust, except, of course, when the revelations come to me, in which case they are always infallible).

 

[RainmanTime]

The 7 days account in the Bibles does not mean 7 24 hour days, but 7 of God's days. The Bible specifies that God days are a lot longer then human days.

Indeed, this is true. And there is even a further distinction laid out in the Qabalistic knowledge that relates to varying levels of TIME..... and TIME is the central point of discussion on this website, if I am correct? The Tree Of Life is represented across four, top-to-bottom LEVELS or LAYERS. The mystical teachings of Qabalah align these with the Four Worlds (layers, levels) of Creation:

World of Emanation (Atziluth) - The top triad on the TOL (1+2+3). Aligns with your brain and mind. From whence all thoughts and ideas you have EMANATE.

World of Creation (Bri'yah) - The mid triad on the TOL(4+5+6). Aligns with your heart and lungs. From whence your mind and body can now set forth a plan to CREATE.

World of Formation (Yetzirah) - The low triad on the TOL(7+8+9). Aligns with your gonads and urethra/anus. From whence your mind and body have the ability to FORM things that will eventually become manifest in the world.

World of Manifestation (Asiyah) - The 10th sphere on the TOL. 10. The completed work. Aligns with any and all RESULTS that you come to have MANIFESTED in the physical world we each interact with.

The Qabalistic theory is that TIME passes at different rates in all four of these worlds. It passes most quickly in the lower (more physical) levels. As you ascend upwards from Level 4 to Level 1, the length of TIME of a defined CYCLE on that level becomes longer. From DAYS to YEARS to GENERATIONS to EPOCHS.

So geometrically and from a standpoint of TIME, the four worlds represent four different levels of reality that each of our SELVES are existing in at the same TIME. Or IOW, in PARALLEL. We all act through our physical bodies in shorter periods of TIME (seconds to days). But all of that knowledge is captured and represented only on the lowest of the four levels of existence (Four Worlds).

Is each of us really FOUR beings in ONE? Living and making decisions for our future at all levels, simultaneously?

RMT

(PS - Sorry, meant to leave this link to the Work Of The Chariot site

http://www.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Teachings-FourWorlds.html

 

[mr_paradox]

The virtual universality of these myths (try the term archetypal ) is another argument for the existence of a god. And you mentioned the flood, which may well refer to the catastrophic rise in sea levels which occurred about 11,000 years ago. Of course, the flood bears more on questions relating to global warming than on the existence of a god, but it does reinforce that the myths of the old testament are not just stupid nonsense.

I don't really think it proves the existance of god per say. Myths usually have some sort of truth behind them, they are like a way for lessons to be passed down. But sometimes the meaning of the myth is obscured.I remember talking to an Indian fellow, and he told me the Tamils believed that if you store food with a piece of charcoal it will keep away evil spirits. And it is evil spirits that cause food to spoil. The indian fellow was then laughing at the myth. Well if you translate evil spirits into poisons or poison caused by bacteria, charcoal will absorb poison. That is why filters on gas masks are made of charcoal.

So some indian guy a few thousand years ago noticed that if you store food with charcoal it lasts longer. Ofcourse he did not know about germs, so he assumed it kept away evil spirits.

 

[Gpa]

They knew what worked, they just didn't know the science behind it. Exactly as we might expect in most myths. That doesn't automatically make them unreal.

 

[RainmanTime]

They knew what worked, they just didn't know the science behind it. Exactly as we might expect in most myths.

And we know, for a fact, that one purpose of myth is to actually pass on knowledge. Basic truths. Things that work.RMT

 

[Nicolas]

Thank you RainmanTime and Thank you Cosmo. Fine job.Ok, are we ready to play?Let's review.

1st. Thomas pendrake made an innocent enough comment;

2nd. aboleth_lich attacked Christians and anyone else that may believe in creation, even in some oblique way. He immediately labeled religion as "bad religion"; ( "Parts" of ALL religions are incompatible with "parts" of science)

and goes on to describe what bad science is;

Interesting choice of words; "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias".

That's the same perception, some actual real scientists, as opposed to "our largely ignorant ancestors?", see when they look at the "deeply twisted and contorted so as to fit a pre-existing narrative and bias" DATA ,used as proof of AGW/ACC but, that's another argument.

3rd. Thomas pendrake presented "Kurt Godel's ontological proof."

4th. Nicolas made what could be considered a "smart ass" comment. Nicolas said it was irony in his post 15. Let the reader decide.

5th. While replying to a reference by Milo.X. about weather;

I asked Nicolas, an acknowledged atheist;

6th. Thomas pendrake acknowledged my comment;

7th. Nicolas responded to my query; "Have you read Genesis?"

He quotes passages (in part) from Genesis chapter 1:11-24. Then, IMO, in a condescending manner, presented some of the standard atheist talking points for discussions involving religious belief. For brevity, I will only quote his closing statements.

I suppose here, I could give a lesson on grammar, since I received one on scientific theory but, I doubt it's necessary. Perhaps he sees his mistake. I wonder, what are your qualifications to make the determination of "what it really is"?

I'll be referring to these a little later.

8th. I posted, the first 10 passages from Genesis he left out so I could point out that the "light" he insisted must come before plants, came before plants.

(Let me take a moment for an apparently needed biology lesson. The "first land plants" did not use "photosynthesis". If you want more in depth information than that, go get a more in depth education in biology.)

It was created on the first day. On the fourth day, when you claim it was created, it was given a designation.

(RainmanTime has already pointed this out with evidence,)

9th. Nicolas delved into semantics.

10th. I tried to explain my position. Tried to use a little sarcasm, which used an improper allusion, on which I was called out and given a lecture on scientific theory. Tried to use humor (unsuccessfully it would seem.) Pointed out that the Bible can not be taken in a literal form because compared to It's initial writhing, it is now out of context and has intentional misinterpretations brought about by both Church and Kings.

11th. Nicolas chastised me for not presenting my reasoning, evidence, proof, whatever, while dismissing the reasoning I "had" offered. This is also where I received a lecture on "learning something new today"... even though I understood it 30 years before he was born but, whatever. I didn't point out that he stated Boyle's Law incorrectly.

A little more semantics and a closing statement indicating that pretty much, nothing I say is acceptable proof...to him.

It seems RainmanTime has but....

12th. I defended my position on some wishing evolution could be a law;

"I argue that the most irritating term in evolution is the use of the phrase "theory of evolution", instead of "law of evolution". Why do biologists and paleontologists continue to paint a huge, flashing target on their profession by using the term "theory of evolution", i.e., inviting criticism by allowing creationist and anti-science opponents to focus on the word "theory"? There is a perfectly acceptable alternative, "law of evolution", which, etymologically speaking, would stop many (not all) arguments dead in their tracks."

I usually cite sources but, this time I won't. Google it and look it up for yourselves. There is some contradictory information in there for you, Nicolas, but I imagine you will somehow discount it.

I pointed out the absurdity of demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible by demonstrating Darwin's ideas could not be taken literally, since we had new evidence that he was "wrong" on several of his observations. If you want "proof of that", go to college and study it.

13th. Nicolas defended Dawkins, unsuccessfully, IMO. Admitted to confusion on the subject at hand, which is understandable. Nicolas indicated that my opinion on Genesis was...

...Unacceptable.

14th. I explained "Why" he was confused and would not understand it no matter how I explained it. Reaffirmed my position ,creation accounts were NOT EXACT".

15th.Thomas pendrake expressed his amazement that this was so hard to understand and pointed out how "he" had never intended it was a literal description.

16th. I pointed out that I had not presented certain scriptures as proof, but that Nicolas had already done so, I could only have been redundant and he would only restate the disagreement he already had with the Biblical accounts.

17th. Nicolas chose semantics as a way to claim I had denigrated "him" along with ALL atheists.

18th. I responded semantically to his points as well and pointed out his misconceptions.

19th. Finally, RainmanTime entered the conversation with his, Part 1, of well founded information. Information I had suggested earlier, but through lack of knowledge on the subject, was unable to inject.

20th. Thomas pendrake pointed out that we had still not entered into consideration of the ontological proof by Godel.

(I admit I can't because I'm not that familiar with it.)

21st. kimberlyd asked about the weather.

22nd Milo.X. asked for clarification on part of RainmanTime's information.

23rd. RainmanTime answered Milo.X. and offered Part 2 of his information.

24th. I thanked RainmanTime.

25th. aboleth_lich engaged in ontological discussion on the subject.

26th. I stated I found aboleth_lich's post to be verbose. Well, It is. I stated that I felt his logic was invalid and suggested, as an exercise in learning, he find it himself. It is possible "I" am incorrect, but I can't see his logic as it's worded. There is someone here that might be more qualified to decide that.

27th. Thomas pendrake again discussed Godel's proof and wondered about aboleth_lich's understanding of physics.

28th. aboleth_lich wondered why I didn't just tell him what his mistake might be. Pointed out that he felt Thomas pendrake and I were "mean" (I deduced that from the original five adjectives). Defended his education and finished with something along the line of, he didn't like how we played so he was going home.

29th. I replied to his criticism of my behavior by pointing out "Sheldon" and I were apparently similar in our inability to properly use sarcasm or be aware when we are being condescending toward someone. Kinda like maybe the lines just above these.

30th. Milo.X. continued his discussion with RainmanTime on the "plurality" of God.

31st. thomas pendrake "complimented" aboleth_lich on his education, but still wondered how he missed some important facts. He discussed "notable" scientists that he knew or believed were NOT atheists, and offered a suggestion to Milo.X. on the plurality question.

32nd. Darby admonished aboleth_lich and thomas pendrake for lowering themselves to engage in trivial arguments when "some" still wondered about the Earth being at the center of the solar system.

(I can't help but like Darby. He's "to the point". I have been corrected by him and I respect his opinions.)

33rd. Nicolas woke up and began by indicating he still does not understand ad hominem and apparently, does not recognize the grammatical mistake I referred to earlier, which I suggested he might figure out on his own. Although, he may be correct... in Brazil. He says he has seen a group of Christians surround a group of atheists and vehemently attack and denigrate them for their "non-belief". Eh.. maybe. There are idiots on both sides. He includes himself as having been attacked. I wonder if he considers this, one of those times?

He makes comparisons where no prior mention exists. He tries to slide around the information RainmanTime has presented even though the information presented by RainmanTime, " translation, multiple interpretations, aligning verses" is exactly what is required to understand this argument. We'll get back to this post.*

34th. RainmanTime responds to Nicolas' "dodge" with more valid understanding of the "original" text.

35th. Cosmo splits this discussion off from the "wrong" thread we took off track. I apologize to Milo.X.

36th. There are a few more posts, but following this review, I intend to start another new direction. Maybe tomorrow.

*Back to Nicolas' post

"You" labeled yourself an atheist. I commented on what I have seen atheists do on numerous occasions. If it doesn't "fit you" why worry about it?

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;

"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."

No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

My post was concerning "you" asking me to prove/show/or whatever, why I believe "my position on Genesis". You keep inserting Jesus, God, and the Bible, not I.

Very early on I said;

My comment...

... is rhetorical.

For more context;

I understand your disappointment.

The rest is for RainmanTime and he has already responded to it.

But of course you would do that.This was a nice recap of how you see things, conveniently turning a blind eye to the posts you previously ignored and also bringing up many irrelevant subjects that had nothing to do with the original question. Just for the fun of it I guess?

I feel like this thread could easily be split into a few others, for example:

• Difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Law;
   
   
   
  
• How to explain evolution to extra terrestrials;
   
   
   
  
• Explaining caterpillars to a 6th years old;
   
   
   
  
• The day Dr. Dawkins or any other biologist for that matter, stated that they would like so much for the Theory of Evolution to be named Law of Evolution, despite the fact that they already understand that this is not how theories relate to laws and how Evolution works.
   
   
   
  
• Characteristics of an atheist and why they can't understand faith;
   
   
   
  
• Why it is alright to pick on a foreigner's grammar when you have 30 years over him;
   
   
   
  
• How does having a college degree allows you to constantly repeat this to improve how you feel about something;
   
   
   
  

And the best one:

• How to steer away from a simple question by using the past 6 items and much more!
   
   
   
  

Anyway, I feel I should apologize for my grammar. I'm Brazilian and speak Portuguese. Learning the English language is something I've been working hard on for the past few years and the mistakes you pointed out sure are unacceptable. Also, please forgive me for future mistakes.

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

Lol, this reminds me a lot of some arguments I had with my stepson. He's 14. He used to do this more when he was younger though. Such a great kid.

Although, he may be correct... in Brazil.

Since they don't really teach us how to discriminate in English where I study, I would ask you exactly what you meant by that statement as it's not clear to me. But, I'm afraid this will generate 15 other posts on lunar evolution of milipides in Mars...

 

[Einstein]

Here is a link for some Martian millipedes. But no mention of their lunar evolution.

http://areology.blogspot.com/2011/10/millipedes-of-mars.html

 

[Nicolas]

Let me see if I can probe some more to pin down exactly what you are claiming, or not claiming, as the case may be. Allow me to take this, your unmodified statement:and modify it a bit to see if you agree with the modifications, before we proceed with a further discussion:I added the parts in bold underline. To help me understand exactly what you are claiming, tell me if you agree or disagree with my modifications. If that clearly represents your statement, then I will agree. If your claim goes beyond that, we potentially have more to discuss.

RMT

I honestly didn't understand the new sense of the original phrase you changed So, if I may:

the earth before light, light without stars, days going by without a sun, whales before land mammals, birds before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before animals.

This quote you can find in Genesis. Well, not exactly like that of course. But it's there. And that doesn't match what we know of evolution.

 

[Gpa]

Nicolas...

This was a nice recap of how you see things...

Feel free to do your own. Unless what follows is it.

...conveniently turning a blind eye to the posts you previously ignored...

I covered every post except the two that were posted as I was writing my post.

...and also bringing up many irrelevant subjects that had nothing to do with the original question.

Have you "never" had a real conversation?It begins with one person saying they heard there really were pink elephants.

The next person says, "Dude, I got so drunk one time I thought I saw them."

Then someone adds, "You wanna compare drinking stories, listen to this..."

And on it goes. Conversations flow... but IMO... this one has pretty much stayed on topic. The topic has been viewed from different angles, but has stayed on track.

I feel like this thread could easily be split into a few others' date=' for example:[/quote']all following quotes are Nicolas'

Difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Law;

Been covered... I admitted it was a poor choice of words.What "hasn't been covered is my evidence "against" your position.

How to explain evolution to extra terrestrials;

It was ET's telling "us"... well evolutionists... I though it was humorous.

Explaining caterpillars to a 6th years old;

That was a 6th "grader".

The day Dr. Dawkins or any other biologist for that matter, stated that they would like so much for the Theory of Evolution to be named Law of Evolution, despite the fact that they already understand that this is not how theories relate to laws and how Evolution works.

Yes... as stated above, where's your response to my evidence demonstrating it has been?

Characteristics of an atheist and why they can't understand faith;

Completely relevant when taken in context.

Why it is alright to pick on a foreigner's grammar when you have 30 years over him;

The first one to "correct" the grammar or syntax or etymology of another... was you. Post #15 of this thread. In fact, you didn't just correct an error on my part, you proceeded to "lecture" me on it.I still haven't "corrected" you about it, let alone lecture you about it. I haven't even pointed to exactly what the error was. I suggested, it might not be an error as far as your "translating" from Portuguese to English. Portuguese is similar to Spanish and Mexican. When I read in the Mexican language, it reads backwards to me. I was not denigrating you in any way. While you appear to have a very good grasp on English, we may be having a problem on comprehension. Don't take that wrong. There are people, born and raised in this country, who have little reading comprehension. Too many.

How does having a college degree allows you to constantly repeat this to improve how you feel about something;

I have never, since I have been here, made it a pissing contest on who's degree was more advanced or had Latin phrases on it. I have never formed the basis of, correct or incorrect, on a piece of paper. I have suggested, more education could be a benefit to better understanding.

And the best one:How to steer away from a simple question by using the past 6 items and much more!

See above on conversation... and... It hasn't.

Well. Nicolas, as you have said to me, with no antecedent, I say to you, with justification;
"It's all right sir... I'm not that Christian that once hurt you."

No atheists... I repeat NO atheists, have ever hurt me in any way.

Lol, this reminds me a lot of some arguments I had with my stepson. He's 14. He used to do this more when he was younger though. Such a great kid.

Yet somehow, it was fine for you to speak so condescendingly to me.

Although, he may be correct... in Brazil.

Since they don't really teach us how to discriminate in English where I study, I would ask you exactly what you meant by that statement as it's not clear to me. But, I'm afraid this will generate 15 other posts on lunar evolution of milipides in Mars...

Nope; Einstein already got it. I already answered this above.

 

[thomas pendrake]

I don't really think it proves the existance of god per say. Myths usually have some sort of truth behind them, they are like a way for lessons to be passed down. But sometimes the meaning of the myth is obscured.I remember talking to an Indian fellow, and he told me the Tamils believed that if you store food with a piece of charcoal it will keep away evil spirits. And it is evil spirits that cause food to spoil. The indian fellow was then laughing at the myth. Well if you translate evil spirits into poisons or poison caused by bacteria, charcoal will absorb poison. That is why filters on gas masks are made of charcoal.So some indian guy a few thousand years ago noticed that if you store food with charcoal it lasts longer. Ofcourse he did not know about germs, so he assumed it kept away evil spirits.

It was not my intent to offer the universality of God concepts in even the most isolated cultures (there is one isolated primitive tribe that only speaks of spirits, and a few people have tried to say this is an exception) as proof of God.. The point is that it is one factor to make actual atheism a matter of a specific faith (perhaps not always structured) that is in spite of many hints that there is most likely some sort of god. My argument is that any Atheist may be entitled to their faith, but not to pretend that it is based on science or logic.

 

[mr_paradox]

My argument is that any Atheist may be entitled to their faith, but not to pretend that it is based on science or logic.

I will take your argument one step further. Certain types of Atheism are a religion, except they believe in "nothing", but "nothing" is actually something. Why I state this, is there are now many atheist groups which are promising if you become an atheist you will be happier, has a study been done on this ? How do you measure happiness ?People state that atheist groups are non violent, Maoism is an extreme from of atheism coupled with out beliefs. It appears to be pretty violent when it comes to conversion.

Belief and science are two different things. Darwin was most likely a Christian, from his writings he appeared to be Christian. A belief is something which can not be proven or disproven.

 

[Nicolas]

I will take your argument one step further. Certain types of Atheism are a religion, except they believe in "nothing", but "nothing" is actually something. Why I state this, is there are now many atheist groups which are promising if you become an atheist you will be happier, has a study been done on this ? How do you measure happiness ?People state that atheist groups are non violent, Maoism is an extreme from of atheism coupled with out beliefs. It appears to be pretty violent when it comes to conversion.Belief and science are two different things. Darwin was most likely a Christian, from his writings he appeared to be Christian. A belief is something which can not be proven or disproven.

Lol, I'm curious about that type of atheism where they believe in nothing. Is there a website for these guys?I only ask because the only atheism I was presented to is the exact opposite: absence of faith.

 

[petesede]

I am not an apologist for the Papists' date=' but the Roman Church has long since denounced the geocentric view, and has some very good astronomers. I also find it astounding that anyone believes that there is any conflict between science and religion. Bad science and bad religion, perhaps. There are multiple creation myths (not a bad word, by the way) in the Bible, read the one in the Gospel of John. The primary one in Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory. For a mature understanding of the nature of myth, read Hamlet's Mill.

There are just a lot of issues with modern world and religion. The first off is religious Christians who feel that any mistakes or changes to the Bible must be obscured and never admitted. The Bible must be perfect, because if a mistake is found somewhere, it can lead to people questioning other parts. For this reason, a lot of Christians, no matter how much the evidence, will not admit anything in the Bible is not perfect.But another issue is simply in translation of the book of Genesis. The problem is that all the debate about the first few pages of the Bible always end up in english.. when in fact, it is very easy to reconcile evolution with genesis just based on the original texts. Most people don´t know this but when the Bible is talking about the first 7 days.. the word ´day´ is different than anywhere else in the book of Genesis... it is much more accurate to translate it to ´eras´ or ´stages´ Once you do that, it makes a lot more sense when talking about the Big Bang, the formation of the universe, and evolution.

 

[thomas pendrake]

Lol, I'm curious about that type of atheism where they believe in nothing. Is there a website for these guys?I only ask because the only atheism I was presented to is the exact opposite: absence of faith.

Absence of faith may be agnosticism, but atheism is a specific belief that there is no God. When you are standing around the water cooler trying to sound cool, or maybe at some bar trying to pick up some chick, or be picked up, saying that you are an agnostic may not sound as cool as saying that you are an atheist, but just remember what Dr. Carl Sagan said about it, "By some definitions atheism is very stupid." It doesn't take very much to prove that point. The belief in a specific God is a matter of faith. If that specific God is no god, it is a matter of blind faith. We know that consciousness is real, and to deny the probability that there is no Cosmic Consciousness (the Logos) that is capable of observing itself in order bring the Universe into existence just does not make a whole lot of sense.I understand that logos can have many different meanings, but I stick with the one used by Philo Judea and quoted in the creation story in the Gospel according to John.

 

[thomas pendrake]

There are just a lot of issues with modern world and religion. The first off is religious Christians who feel that any mistakes or changes to the Bible must be obscured and never admitted. The Bible must be perfect, because if a mistake is found somewhere, it can lead to people questioning other parts. For this reason, a lot of Christians, no matter how much the evidence, will not admit anything in the Bible is not perfect.But another issue is simply in translation of the book of Genesis. The problem is that all the debate about the first few pages of the Bible always end up in english.. when in fact, it is very easy to reconcile evolution with genesis just based on the original texts. Most people don´t know this but when the Bible is talking about the first 7 days.. the word ´day´ is different than anywhere else in the book of Genesis... it is much more accurate to translate it to ´eras´ or ´stages´ Once you do that, it makes a lot more sense when talking about the Big Bang, the formation of the universe, and evolution.

For most of the early history of Christianity, the "old testament" was not considered as canonical, even being viewed as unacceptable for Christians because of the passages in the writings of both Peter and Paul stating that the faith of Christians is not based on Jewish "myths and fables", but rather on "Christ Crucified".

 

[Nicolas]

(sorry I couldn't access the link you posted, it doesn't open here at work)

Absence of faith may be agnosticism' date=' but atheism is a specific belief that there is no God.

I do reckon there are many definitions of atheism. I've seen people defining themselves as many things, like agnostic atheists, pure atheists, non-theist, anti-theists and so on.The definition you gave exists, according to this online dictionary:

Atheism

noun

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

... but it is not the only one. I would say that it isn't even the most correct one, from what I know about atheism. As number 2 shows, atheism means also a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

As I can only speak for myself, I'll tell you that my atheism is more well defined by that second statement. I also observe the community of atheists I participate and to me, it seems that we share the same feeling of "of all the definitions of god brought up, none of them was presented along with enough evidence to support their existence, so we just kinda treat them as humanity treats all the gods that once "existed" and now are "dead"."

I'm yet to meet an atheist that "follows" the "doctrine" of atheism. There's no such a thing.

When you are standing around the water cooler trying to sound cool, or maybe at some bar trying to pick up some chick, or be picked up, saying that you are an agnostic may not sound as cool as saying that you are an atheist,

This sounds to me a bit stereotyped. Maybe trying to demean someone's way of life to "water cooler chit chat" a little? I can't tell for sure. All I can say to you is that my atheism is serious, much more than trying to look cool during water breaks. Although I see it might be hard to accept or even understand that a person can live life like this, which such a preconceived view of the term. I could be jumping into this conclusion though, maybe you can show I got it wrong in your next replies. Anyway, this is the way I live my life. Away from the multiple personal concepts of deities that most people try to push on everybody. "You can only breathe because of god", "God cured you", "Pray for my safety" all this sort of things surround us and is nonsensical. We already know how breathing, fighting diseases and safety work. It has nothing to do with this or that god. But this is me, and the environment I experience in a third world country. I don't know how is the faith in deities in your part of the globe.

We know that consciousness is real

We are talking about the consciousness that occur in animals equipped with a brain, right? We know how that works.

to deny the probability that there is no Cosmic Consciousness (the Logos) that is capable of observing itself in order bring the Universe into existence just does not make a whole lot of sense.

How is this an argument? Just substitute "Cosmic Consciousness" by any other definition of god:"Denying that Logos/Shiva/Allah/Zeus/Yahweh is capable of observing itself in order bring the Universe into existence just does not make a whole lot of sense".

I don't recall the exact category this fits in but it sounds a lot like that fallacy "You don't believe this? How can't you!? It's so obvious!". Which again, isn't an argument. Much less evidence of anything.

I understand that logos can have many different meanings, but I stick with the one used by Philo Judea and quoted in the creation story in the Gospel according to John.

By the way, and only if you were willing to, what is this Logos god you believe in? Could you give me a more specific definition? How is it related to the Jewish/Christian god? These are honest questions. I'm ignorant on this deity.

The belief in a specific God is a matter of faith. If that specific God is no god, it is a matter of blind faith.

Do you consider yourself to use blind faith to disbelief in Odin? Or do you just kinda don't care about him? Remember that this is the Odin that once ruled this world, blessed armies to win battles and healed people. A very powerful god.

just remember what Dr. Carl Sagan said about it, "By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

I've seen this quote being attributed to Dr. Sagan before but I can't seem to find where he said or wrote this. Do you think you can provide a reference? To me this has always sounded very unlikely to be said, specially because the poor choice of words, by Dr. Sagan.I do know that these quotes are from him:

"In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious.

-"Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in the Space (1994)

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."


-"Scientists & Their Gods" in U.S. News & World Report Vol. 111 (1991)