502 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

Isn't there some Physical Law involving Hitler and forums?

[Alakhriveion]

Alak:

If microevolution doesn't exist, well, then I guess that macroevolution can't exist either. Which means that an intelligent Creator has created the Earth, and that the Bible could have been divinely inspired. That's what you just said, do you agree? Which side are you on, Alak?

No. Microevolution doesn't exist because the distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' is nonexistant. There's just evolution, and it takes a bit longer than 6000 years to take us from so few species you can fit samples of each in the arc to what we have now.

Yes, microevolution does exist. Science has proven it. What I meant by then, is, there were two bears. After the Flood, they mated. Mammals do this. It makes more bears. Those bears go everywhere, mating along the way. When they reach the arctic, they evolve so they don't die. Now there's polar bears. Whoa. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!????? That means... this could be possible for every kind of animal they had on the Ark.

No, because Polar Bears have been a distinct subspecies of Brown Bears for more than 6000 years.

True, but the Earth wasn't a desert then, was it?

No, but if it was completely flooded, the oceans would have been too diluted for sea water animals.

Okay, you got me. I don't know what to say to that. I mean, heck, it's not like animals eat other animals or anything.

Herbivores don't, and if the carnivores are eating them, you've got even LESS space to fill with thousands upon thousands of species, because you'll loose a huge number of your samples.

Birds don't have to be IN the Ark. So, that doesn't count.

Their food does, so it does.

Besides, aren't you Jewish? This is Genesis. Genesis is in the Torah. Should you really be arguing against it?

Yeah, still not a believer, though, and even if I was, not a literal one. Nonsense is nonsense.

Jesus is Jesus. Hitler is Hitler.

I have come to a conclusion on the subject of Biblical Truth. Goodbye.

RIGHT over your head.

[TheAvengerLever]

What Alak doesn't know is that I get it

[Korhend]

Yes, microevolution does exist. Science has proven it. What I meant by then, is, there were two bears. After the Flood, they mated. Mammals do this. It makes more bears. Those bears go everywhere, mating along the way. When they reach the arctic, they evolve so they don't die. Now there's polar bears. Whoa. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!????? That means... this could be possible for every kind of animal they had on the Ark.

Except, wait, most species that exist now existed before when the flood is dated, and in fact there were more species back then then there are now. You have to get Moa's and Wooly mammoths and what not.

[Goose]

This is the Catholic Viewpoint on the subject.

Genesis is NOT a Science Text Book
Genesis was never meant to be understood as a science text book. So when we talk about things like evolution, you're not ever going to find that in the Bible because evolution has nothing to do with God's redeeming work or has inspired word to his people. The only thing we need to remember is what the Church teaches in this regard, evolution exists, and we see it in nature and in the process of natural history. We don't deny that evolution takes place.

As is seen in that most favorite of books... the CCC, #302:

"Creations has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete form the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call "divine providence" the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection."

But we disagree with most Evolutionists on the issue of humans as animals. "Male and female, he created them. In the divine image, he created them." To say that we were anything less than human, is to deny the divine image. What does this divine image mean? It's not anything physical in the sense of how we look. That means that early humans were probably more hairy, in some cases shorter and some cases taller and some cases with bigger foreheads or longer arms and everything else you can imagine when you think of a caveman, but what it doesn't mean is that we were an ape.

Once again I direct your attention to the CCC, #41:

"All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures- their truth, their goodness, their beauty- all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures' perfections as our starting point, 'for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.'"

The problem with using Genesis as a science book is that it mixes up your head. You begin to think that you have to choose the Genesis science book or the other science books. "If there was a Big Bang, then we don't need God." Well, no. If there was a Big Bang, we still need someone to start it. And whatever name you want to give that starting point, ultimately it's God.

Then you can say, "Well if the Big Bang was the start of everything, what started God?" Alright, let me just answer this one straight out. There's no such thing as a stupid question, but that one comes really close.

By the very definition of what God is, it means He can't have a beginning or an end, He can't have a limit. He can't have any of the failings or the weaknesses that we would place on him, because if He did He wouldn't be God. Remember what St. Anselm of Canterbury once said, "Whatever the human mind can conceive of God, that is not God in his fullness." What that's saying very politely is, whatever we, or any scientist or anyone else would want to try to define God, can't do it. He's bigger than we are.

Summary:
My hope, is that we use the Scriptures for what they're intended, to teach us how to live. How to live with each other and how to live for God and that we would stop trying to make up other reasons for the Bible. Whether that's finding secret passages that tells about the future or finding a sequence of verses that tell of hidden meanings for our present times. Because that's just us as human beings trying to do the same thing Adam and Eve did at the very beginning, trying to out think God. And that's just not going happen. Always keep in mind what our Holy Father once said, "some would have it that only that is true which can be verified by reason and science; yet prayer is a mystery that overflows both our conscious and unconscious lives." (Address to the Third General Assembly of Latin American Bishops)

So, the next time you get the chance open up Genesis and really listen to how much God loves you.

I know, its a bit long, but its valid.

Edited by Goose, 18 June 2006 - 05:02 AM.

[SOAP]

I don't understand why the Bible even needs to be historically true in the first place. As a moral guide it's pretty solid I guess. But as a historical record it's way off. You can go ahead and say you believe it uses [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of metaphors but if you're saying it's literal truth don't whine when people find it hard to swallow because it is. For something to be literally true and historically accurate you need evidence to back it up. You can't back that up with the Bible. If you can't prove it either way then it's not true.

C'mon guys. If everything in the Bible were just stories and Jesus was just a man, it would not take away from it's meaning. It doesn't mean the morals inside don't apply anymore.

[TheAvengerLever]

No, because Polar Bears have been a distinct subspecies of Brown Bears for more than 6000 years.

Speculation and estimated dating. You as a human dont really know how long the world has lasted. Science cannot prove anything, and it's only in theory, only some aspects of science can work.

I don't understand why the Bible even needs to be historically true in the first place.

No one knows that the Bible is even historically true or not. And no one can prove it. By any means.

[arunma]

No one knows that the Bible is even historically true or not. And no one can prove it. By any means.

No matter which side of the debate you're on, the Bible can be historically investigated. The entire science of archeology is well-suited to this task. The Bible contains historical information. And this information can be scientifically verified or refuted.

[Alakhriveion]

I don't understand why the Bible even needs to be historically true in the first place. As a moral guide it's pretty solid I guess. But as a historical record it's way off. You can go ahead and say you believe it uses [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of metaphors but if you're saying it's literal truth don't whine when people find it hard to swallow because it is. For something to be literally true and historically accurate you need evidence to back it up. You can't back that up with the Bible. If you can't prove it either way then it's not true.

C'mon guys. If everything in the Bible were just stories and Jesus was just a man, it would not take away from it's meaning. It doesn't mean the morals inside don't apply anymore.

No, the morals in there don't apply of their own right. Slavery, stoning disobedient children, genocide, banning graven images, that's borderline moral at best.

Speculation and estimated dating. You as a human dont really know how long the world has lasted. Science cannot prove anything, and it's only in theory, only some aspects of science can work.

AGAIN, both are innaccurate to some degree, but that doesn't mean they're innaccurate to the SAME degree.

[Showsni]

14 of every clean animal and bird, Alak. Not 7. Sorry, it was just niggling me.

[Alakhriveion]

Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate.

So... could be.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 18 June 2006 - 06:15 PM.

[SOAP]

[quote]No one knows that the Bible is even historically true or not. And no one can prove it. By any means.
[/quote]Which is why you can't say it's true. Not in that sense. It's not literal truth unless you can prove it it one way or another. Until thern it's just comes down to what the invididual person believes and everyone will have their own idea. Don't be surprised when people disagree with you.

[quote name='TheAvengerButton' post='232909' date='Jun 18 2006, 06:55 PM']
Speculation and estimated dating. You as a human dont really know how long the world has lasted. Science cannot prove anything, and it's only in theory, only some aspects of science can work.[/quote]No matter which side of the debate you're on, the Bible can be historically investigated. The entire science of archeology is well-suited to this task. The Bible contains historical information. And this information can be scientifically verified or refuted.[/quote]
It may contain some historical truth but it's so mixed with symbolisms, imagery, and hyperbolies, it's hard to discern what really happened. It's like Beowulf. Real events turn into myths.

Edited by SOAP, 18 June 2006 - 08:00 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Which is why you can't say it's true. Not in that sense. It's not literal truth unless you can prove it it one way or another. Until thern it's just comes down to what the invididual person believes and everyone will have their own idea. Don't be surprised when people disagree with you.

Oh I'm not suprised at all, and this statement only makes what I said make sense. Of course the Bible cant be proven a literal truth, and in the end it always comes down to what the individual believes.

No matter which side of the debate you're on, the Bible can be historically investigated. The entire science of archeology is well-suited to this task. The Bible contains historical information. And this information can be scientifically verified or refuted.

No. Whilst archeology can be used to find evidence of history, the wrong side of that is estimating what time it came from, and estimates can be wrong. No one can prove the Bible is true or not.

AGAIN, both are innaccurate to some degree, but that doesn't mean they're innaccurate to the SAME degree.

Thank you. They are both innacurate and a precise date and time cannot be placed upon any sort of evidence.

[Vazor]

It'd be literally impossible for them to be inaccurate to the same degree. However, it is just as impossible to legitimately determine which is more accurate.

[SteveT]

Thank you. They are both innacurate and a precise date and time cannot be placed upon any sort of evidence.

Ok, here's the thing.

Say we're playing darts. We both throw one. I hit the wall. You hit the outer ring. While it's true that neither of us hit the bullseye, it's clear that you made the better shot.

[Vazor]

The problem is, it's a blindfolded game of darts. We don't really know where our darts land, just a vague idea.

[Alakhriveion]

So, we're playing blindfolded darts. We're both probably way off the mark, and we can't see the target to tell, but we can grope across the wall for our darts. This is called science. We're groping. You're not, and claiming that if you can't see the darts niether of us won. GROPE DAMMIT.

Thank you. They are both innacurate and a precise date and time cannot be placed upon any sort of evidence.

Are you familiar with the old robot saying "Does not compute?"

[Nevermind]

The trouble is, there's always a possibility that you got turned around and now you're groping the wall opposite the dart board.

[Alakhriveion]

The trouble is, there's always a possibility that you got turned around and now you're groping the wall opposite the dart board.

Let's assume we at least threw in the right general direction. Otherwise the solution may involve less groping and more hippie-trippy stuff like Buddhism and peyote.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 19 June 2006 - 06:07 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

Feel free to corrrect me, but isn't the Bible all about God?

You have to decide if an almighty God who created the universe is real, OR is simply the product of human imagination desperate for answers. If you do believe in God then by default the Bible will obviously be right about some things, and completely wrong about others; for instance Genesis doesn't even sound logical nor does Jonah and the whale.

[Alakhriveion]

You have to decide if an almighty God who created the universe is real, OR is simply the product of human imagination desperate for answers. If you do believe in God then by default the Bible will obviously be right about some things, and completely wrong about others; for instance Genesis doesn't even sound logical nor does Jonah and the whale.

Well, obviously the Bible, or the Torah, or the Qu'Ran, the poorly-defined beliefs of Rastafarianism... whichever will be right about something. Belief in God doesn't leap right to Christianity.

[Nevermind]

Let's assume we at least threw in the right general direction. Otherwise the solution may involve less groping and more hippie-trippy stuff like Buddhism and peyote.

Well, in that case, everyone else is throwing in the same general direction as well. Just different sides of the dartboard. Except for Buddhists. I don't think they play darts.

[Alakhriveion]

Well, in that case, everyone else is throwing in the same general direction as well. Just different sides of the dartboard. Except for Buddhists. I don't think they play darts.

Yeah I think we sucked that analogy dry right there.

[Nevermind]

Analogy or not, everyone's different beliefs are each true in their own right. Even Buddhists have a form of logic in their action/reaction foundation, they just exaggerate it a little. And even evolution is not a complete truth, as it is only a theory based on logic and "most-likely". The only way to prove evolution right to a certain degree would be through the observation of micro-evolution, which you stated does not exist, so...

[Wolf O'Donnell]

It's GOD we're talking about here. I would think that, you know, since he is almighty that he'd be able to keep the plants alive long enough to bring light.

Or you know, he could do the sensible thing and make the plants AFTER he made the Sun. I mean, people go on about how intelligent he is, then they go and say that the very early bits of Genesis is literal history, which is "evidence" that God is not very intelligent at all.

I would also appreciate it, Mr. Avenger Button, if you don't attribute other people's quotes to me by not, you know, putting their names in the quote boxes. You made it look as if I said all of that stuff in your reply, but I didn't.

2 of every animal THEN. That doesn't include water based. Air based animals just need a little place to perch. They don't have to be in a cage everywhere.

Ever heard of MicroEvolution?

Yes, but there are a few problems with that viewpoint.

First, there's literalness of it all. If Noah literally took a small sample of each animal in existence, then he couldn't possibly have. There are animals located in the earth, sealed off from the outside world that have existed for possibly millennia without anybody know they were there.

Secondly, because Noah took such a small sample of animals, that means a very small genetic pool. This would have been highly unstable and inbreeding would have occurred, leading to a very sickly population that would not have survived after the flood.

Heck, we have trouble repopulating populations of animals that number in the 100s, let alone seven or two.

Thirdly, let's not forget the logistics. 40 days and 40 nights, he would have a nightmare holding all that food, removing all that faecal matter etc. etc.

Okay, you got me. I don't know what to say to that. I mean, heck, it's not like animals eat other animals or anything.

Yes, but with such small populations within the ark, if the animals eat each other that kinda defeats the purpose of Noah saving them. We're talking 40 days and 40 nights here. If the animals ate each other, during that time, populations would have gone extinct.

So therefore that particular part cannot be literal. It goes against logic and not in any way that science can prove to be true. I mean, at least with the illogical behaviour of quantum particles, we can prove they do what they do.

And Alak's knee jerk reaction to microevolution is very understandable.

It's what Creationists use to weasel their way out of accepting "macroevolution".

Still doesn't change the fact that microevolution exists. Sickle cell, skin colours etc. etc. are proof of evolution.

Let us also, not get side-tracked into that debate. That one can go on forever.

[TheAvengerLever]

Thirdly, let's not forget the logistics. 40 days and 40 nights, he would have a nightmare holding all that food, removing all that faecal matter etc. etc

Well what about God? Why couldn't he provide food and remove all the fecal matter?

I would also appreciate it, Mr. Avenger Button, if you don't attribute other people's quotes to me by not, you know, putting their names in the quote boxes. You made it look as if I said all of that stuff in your reply, but I didn't.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean for it to look like that. But whoever said it knows what they said and I shouldn't have to remind them of who they are. But, if it makes you happier...

If Noah literally took a small sample of each animal in existence, then he couldn't possibly have. There are animals located in the earth, sealed off from the outside world that have existed for possibly millennia without anybody know they were there.

Yeah, but dont you think those animals would've been blocked off from the big freakin' flood outside?

Or you know, he could do the sensible thing and make the plants AFTER he made the Sun. I mean, people go on about how intelligent he is, then they go and say that the very early bits of Genesis is literal history, which is "evidence" that God is not very intelligent at all.

...it's GOD. Let me spell it out for you. G O D GOD. He can do whatever he want because he is GOD, and to say that he isn't very intelligent is down right stupid.

Are you familiar with the old robot saying "Does not compute?"

Good one. Not.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 19 June 2006 - 12:12 PM.

[SteveT]

...

I'll never make an analogy again.

I'll be like the contents of Paris Hilton's closet--nothing's like anything else.


I was trying to invoke the distinction between accuracy and precision, but now I'm in NO MOOD.

Edited by SteveT, 19 June 2006 - 05:25 PM.

[SOAP]

Why do stories like Flood and Jonah and the Whale, ect, even have to be true? Couldn't they just be stories completely made up to help illustrate a point? Jesus told things like parables all the time to illustrate his points. None of them were actual events but that didn't mean his points were invalid. Even if none of the Bible ever happened or at least happened it wouldn't matter. It's the message behind them that matters. Too many Christians spend way too much on proving these events really happened with hoaxes like the discovery Noah's ark they completely miss the underlining messages behind the stories.

[Nevermind]

That's true. It is the moral values that are supposed to be put across. Stories just come under 'details'. However, it works both ways, with non-Christians spending way too much time on proving that none of these events never really happened, and so they also completely miss the underlying message.

Everyone is all about details, and how they prove or disprove this or that. I mean, you know, the whole "Love thy neighbour..." bit applies to anyone whether Christian or not. It's basically just actions and consequences anyway. If you're gonna be a motherfucker to people, expect them to be a motherfucker to you. Action/reaction, Love thy neighbour, karma, whatever. That is the only point at which everything comes together. Nothing else can really be proven either way.

[spunky-monkey]

The Bible delivers a message helping believers and non-believers alike relate to this almighty God in some fashion or another. The drawback with stories is they are just stories. We're in serious danger of building up assumptions about this deity's character when half the gospels aren't real or remotely based on true events we start to doubt ourselves, and more importantly, God's capacity to forgive.