Science today
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You didn't answer my questions.
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fatass.
You like that idea, don't you? You'de do better to direct you attentions to ol' Splinter.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Looking in the mirror, for you, must be a laugh-a-second.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You didn't answer my questions.
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fatass.
You like that idea, don't you? You'de do better to direct you attentions to ol' Splinter.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm always too busy laughing at your simple-minded credulity.
Hey, I may be simple-minded, but at least I understand evolution.
Ilíon wrote:
You like that idea, don't you? You'de do better to direct you attentions to ol' Splinter.
All I ever hear is the sound of rain falling on the ground I sit and watch as tears go by
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic? Christian is free to correct me on this point, but my understanding is that he is basing his statements on a reading of one or more English translations (as a fallback position, I will be very surprised if his stance depends on discrepancies between an Aramaic version and available English versions). I am responding on the same playing field. I don't claim any expertise in Biblical scholarship, but I can imitate a Biblical literalist by reading a couple of chapters of the Bible and giving them the interpretation that the words themselves most naturally support. For that, only literacy is required and I fancy that my level of literacy is fairly high. I might also point out that the mere fact that a person believes certain Christian doctrines is not, in itself, a theological qualification, so I don't feel the need to retreat to the shadows merely because a "believer" makes a claim about the Bible. The exchange was prompted by a question from Josh Gray who asked: "Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?" I'm not certain if Josh had in mind an Aramaic or an English version of Genesis, but I would be prepared to bet a dollar that it was an English version.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Says who? The Pentateuch is an attempt to set down in writing the verbal legends, histories and half-remembered tales of a people who were in the process of becoming civilized. I suppose there are some unwashed, flea-bitten preachers in the backwoods of Ohio who still claim that every word of the Old Testament is true, but they are hardly mainstream and given very little shrift except by other illiterates and religion-bashers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Says who? The Pentateuch is an attempt to set down in writing the verbal legends, histories and half-remembered tales of a people who were in the process of becoming civilized. I suppose there are some unwashed, flea-bitten preachers in the backwoods of Ohio who still claim that every word of the Old Testament is true, but they are hardly mainstream and given very little shrift except by other illiterates and religion-bashers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Well, it's certainly assertive enough to imply that it's supposed to be taken seriously, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to base your life on a book that by your own admission is full of lies. How else are you supposed to take it if not literally? Could some incredibly devout person go to hell simply because they misunderstood the Bible?
-
Oakman wrote:
Did you read this in the original Aramaic? Are you sure that what you read is close enough to the original that you, without much training or knowldge of the bible are equipped to denate this point? You, quite rightfully slapped someone down who questioned your right to speak authoritatively on issues of economics. Unless you also have a PhD in comparative religion, or at least a certificate from a mainstream church that you have passed some sort of test of your knowledge, perhaps you should stick to asking questions rather than answering them.
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic? Christian is free to correct me on this point, but my understanding is that he is basing his statements on a reading of one or more English translations (as a fallback position, I will be very surprised if his stance depends on discrepancies between an Aramaic version and available English versions). I am responding on the same playing field. I don't claim any expertise in Biblical scholarship, but I can imitate a Biblical literalist by reading a couple of chapters of the Bible and giving them the interpretation that the words themselves most naturally support. For that, only literacy is required and I fancy that my level of literacy is fairly high. I might also point out that the mere fact that a person believes certain Christian doctrines is not, in itself, a theological qualification, so I don't feel the need to retreat to the shadows merely because a "believer" makes a claim about the Bible. The exchange was prompted by a question from Josh Gray who asked: "Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?" I'm not certain if Josh had in mind an Aramaic or an English version of Genesis, but I would be prepared to bet a dollar that it was an English version.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic?
Dunno. Don't care. I would be surprised to discover that he isn't aware of the problem of taking the English translations as perfect, though. Usually it's the guys who think they are proving something who need do that - True Believers both pro and con.
John Carson wrote:
I am responding on the same playing field.
Not from where I sit. He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally. You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
John Carson wrote:
"Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?"
And the proper answer is: from my limited experience, the third-hand translations that I have read indicate that the world was created in 4004 BC. Obviously this is does not gibe with current archeological findings which demonstrates that the translations may be imperfect, my understanding of those translations may be imperfect, the scribes who set down the verbal histories of the Tribes of Judah may have not remembered the timespans correctly, or that God created the world then, but also created millions of years of prehistory at the same time. Since any and or all of these answers may be wholly, partially, or not at all true, the question is moot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed. The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people. Read Genesis Chapter 2, verses 4-8. As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother. The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed.
Actually, there's a lot more. For starters, Gen 1 repors God creating men and women. Gen 2 says he formed one man and one woman after that.
John Carson wrote:
As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother.
*grin* I hope you realise that I knew that. But, he was expelled, and in his expelled state, he found a wife.
John Carson wrote:
The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Well, it's certainly assertive enough to imply that it's supposed to be taken seriously, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to base your life on a book that by your own admission is full of lies. How else are you supposed to take it if not literally? Could some incredibly devout person go to hell simply because they misunderstood the Bible?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How else are you supposed to take it if not literally?
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
The Biblical narrative leaves little doubt that the Eden dwellers were indeed the first people.
I'm not so sure about that, actually. It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Are you suggesting that who Cain married gives you direction in life ? Well, that could be true, in that I am certain that inbreeding is forbidden under the law, but, broadly speaking, the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics. As such, the record it gives of things such as Gen 1, is very vague. Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Ilíon wrote:
Translaton Translation: You know that fact, Fact, FACT thingie that we "Darwinists" have been going on about seemingly forever? Well, NOW it is!
Tell me, do you believe in mutation and genetic variation? Also, do you believe in heredity? Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How else are you supposed to take it if not literally?
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
I never said that it was devoid of merit. But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's fairly vague, which is odd considering it's supposed to be the unambiguous guide on how to live your life.
Are you suggesting that who Cain married gives you direction in life ? Well, that could be true, in that I am certain that inbreeding is forbidden under the law, but, broadly speaking, the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics. As such, the record it gives of things such as Gen 1, is very vague. Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Finally, do you believe that weak animals tend to die more than strong ones?
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, to be fair, what evidence would he see of that ? Look around you. The weak no longer die, they get welfare.
You should know Troy well enough by now to know that he neither needs nor accepts evidence, and he laughs at those who do. Valiantly laughs.
-
Oakman wrote:
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
I never said that it was devoid of merit. But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic?
Dunno. Don't care. I would be surprised to discover that he isn't aware of the problem of taking the English translations as perfect, though. Usually it's the guys who think they are proving something who need do that - True Believers both pro and con.
John Carson wrote:
I am responding on the same playing field.
Not from where I sit. He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally. You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
John Carson wrote:
"Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?"
And the proper answer is: from my limited experience, the third-hand translations that I have read indicate that the world was created in 4004 BC. Obviously this is does not gibe with current archeological findings which demonstrates that the translations may be imperfect, my understanding of those translations may be imperfect, the scribes who set down the verbal histories of the Tribes of Judah may have not remembered the timespans correctly, or that God created the world then, but also created millions of years of prehistory at the same time. Since any and or all of these answers may be wholly, partially, or not at all true, the question is moot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally.
Mm..."However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible." I would take this to mean that the Bible should be read carefully in order to understand it accurately. The position still seems fairly literalist, just a more sophisticated variant of it.
Oakman wrote:
You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
Actually, I called it an "apparent" contradiction and was rather assuming that Christian wouldn't think it really was a contradiction. Thus I moved on to a literalist perspective. <edit> I see from Christian's later reply that he is not as literalist as I was assuming. </edit>
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God.
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
I just think that there's a simpler explanation than 'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Christian Graus wrote:
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament.
The question is, why would he need to change people? Why would he change people? If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded? Furthermore, do you believe in free will? If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.