Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[reminisco]

We need more cowbell!

Yes we do.

I, for one, got a fever.

[tzor]

THE BIBLE SAYS THE EARTH IS YOUNG AND SINCE THE BIBLE SAYS IT'S TRUE THAT MUST MEAN IT IS!

NO, the Bible says no such thing. The Bible says that God created the Earth. HUMANS claim that means all sorts of things.

No, that was a rather puerile and misjugded attemptat humour.

It might be a bad attempt at humor but even a broken analog watch tells the corrct time twice a day. There are a lot of arguments against creationism, but the one you don't often hear the most is that from a "religious" perspective on the understanding of sacred scripture, taking an exceptionally narrowminded literal view of the Bible is downright wrong.

People "claim" the Bible says all sorts of things. People use the Bible in all sorts of ways. Peter, in his letters, complains that people were doing the same thing to the writings of Paul, tristing the letters to their own damnation as they did with the other scriptures.

Looking at the first chapter of Genisis from a literal linear perspective is frought with very odd problems; why is X before Y and so on. A better understanding is to look at it in a heirarchical fashion. The universe is divided into 6, wich in turn is divided into 3 and 2.

The first set of three is the great divisions.
Day 1: Light / Darkness - in effect the heavens.
Day 2: Divisions of the waters / creation of the sky between the waters.
Day 3: Division of the water below / creation of the land.

The second set gives the rullers of the great divisions
Day 4: Sun / Moon / Stars "rullers" of the heavens.
Day 5: Sea and sky creatures rule over the waters below and the sky inbetween
Day 6: Land animals that rule over the land. Man who rules over all but the heavens.

Having seen this symbolic division it can be intitutively obvious that the seven day week is not proposed because it took 6 periods of 24 hours (in fact 24 hours doesn't really qualify as a day ... traditionally a day is from sunset to sunset not a fixed time period) but because there is a logical mapping from the basic nature of creation to the mapping of the seven day week (complete with the 7th day of rest) which ironically they borrowed from their neighbors.

Now for some additional nit picking. Genesis doesn't not say how God created the Earth. It says how God greated the earth. The earth (not the planet but the dry land) was created after the waters were seperated and then when the waters below were pooled allowing the dry land to appear. Once again another nit pick.

The Bible, after all, does not tell us how the heavens go; it tells us how to go to heaven.

[PLAYER57832]

There are a lot of arguments against creationism, but the one you don't often hear the most is that from a "religious" perspective on the understanding of sacred scripture, taking an exceptionally narrowminded literal view of the Bible is downright wrong.

Definitely an interesting post to read! Most Christians, though, won't accept any other text as having a "base" for the Bible .... the Bible came directly from God.

But the religious criticism I have been taught is simply this: That our days are not Gods. Also, while "days" can refer to a specific earthly time period, it is also often used more generally to mean a less specific block of time. As in .. "in my day.." or "the days of xyz .... are past", etc.

The Bible, after all, does not tell us how the heavens go; it tells us how to go to heaven.

Very true!

[Neoteny]

There is too much agreeing going on in this thread. I disagree with both of you.

[tzor]

Definitely an interesting post to read! Most Christians, though, won't accept any other text as having a "base" for the Bible .... the Bible came directly from God.

As a Roman Catholic I firmly believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. But I also see the inspiration as similar to the old Flip Wilson skit of Noah and God. “Right … what’s a cubit?” We can see this in terms of Jesus describing a number of features of the Law, established because of the hardness and stubbornness of the people. Thus, in spite of our selves, God reveals truth through the writers of the scriptures. Even though the writers are not perfect nor are the readers perfect, God can inspire them both.

It becomes more important when looking at what was around the people at the time. This isn’t something old; Christians from the moment they went forth from Jerusalem were taking things around them and giving them the spin of the Good News. Thus did the people take the elements that were around them, the science of the day, the traditions of the people around them, and made it their own, free from the idols that were all around them.

It becomes stranger still when things evolve and we expect the evolved definitions to retroactively cover the ancient writers. For example, today the Bible is a book, but that is because of modern print methods. The Bible is a collection of Books, or originally a collection of scrolls. The Old Testament, for example was divided into the Law, the Prophets and the other Writings. The New Testament could be equally divided into the Gospels, the Letters and the other writings. (In the early church the Didache was often included in the list of sacred scriptures.) Yet there are those who think that references to the “Book” in both Revelation and Daniel refer to the whole collection we call the “Bible” today even though the list wasn’t really finalized until many centuries after the writer’s death.

[PLAYER57832]

Definitely an interesting post to read! Most Christians, though, won't accept any other text as having a "base" for the Bible .... the Bible came directly from God.

As a Roman Catholic I firmly believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. But I also see the inspiration as similar to the old Flip Wilson skit of Noah and God. “Right … what’s a cubit?” We can see this in terms of Jesus describing a number of features of the Law, established because of the hardness and stubbornness of the people. Thus, in spite of our selves, God reveals truth through the writers of the scriptures. Even though the writers are not perfect nor are the readers perfect, God can inspire them both.

It becomes more important when looking at what was around the people at the time. This isn’t something old; Christians from the moment they went forth from Jerusalem were taking things around them and giving them the spin of the Good News. Thus did the people take the elements that were around them, the science of the day, the traditions of the people around them, and made it their own, free from the idols that were all around them.

It becomes stranger still when things evolve and we expect the evolved definitions to retroactively cover the ancient writers. For example, today the Bible is a book, but that is because of modern print methods. The Bible is a collection of Books, or originally a collection of scrolls. The Old Testament, for example was divided into the Law, the Prophets and the other Writings. The New Testament could be equally divided into the Gospels, the Letters and the other writings. (In the early church the Didache was often included in the list of sacred scriptures.) Yet there are those who think that references to the “Book” in both Revelation and Daniel refer to the whole collection we call the “Bible” today even though the list wasn’t really finalized until many centuries after the writer’s death.

Interesting, for sure, .. and I rather suspected you had to be either Christian or perhaps Jewish, just based on your biblical knowledge (no offense to any scholars who are know the Bible without believing it, it is just you are in the minority...).

If you haven't already, DO view the link below, a brief showing by Comedien Lewis Black. It is hilarious. (from around page 90 of this thread)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4

[Frigidus]

Had to post this, sorry.

http://www.legorobotcomics.com/?id=14

[PLAYER57832]

:

[Neoteny]

Hadouken: fighting ignorance since 1987.

[PLAYER57832]

Pertinent to this thread, the entire works of Darwin have recently been placed online. Here is the link, for anyone who wishes.
In addition to expanded notes on his theories, you find recipes, the pro/con list he wrote when thinking about marriage and other humorous or interesting information.

http://darwin-online.org.uk

[Neoteny]

Darwin has the worst handwriting ever...

[Backglass]

Pertinent to this thread, the entire works of Darwin have recently been placed online. Here is the link, for anyone who wishes.
In addition to expanded notes on his theories, you find recipes, the pro/con list he wrote when thinking about marriage and other humorous or interesting information.

http://darwin-online.org.uk

Also, keep in mind while reading that modern day science has moved far beyond Darwin's original theories. His works are not some "science bible" that all science minded people claim to be 100% infallible, but rather a starting point.

It would be like reading Thomas Edison's notes and then using them to comment on today's electricity distribution grid or nuclear power plants. Keep them in the context of the times they were written.

[tzor]

It would be like reading Thomas Edison's notes and then using them to comment on today's electricity distribution grid or nuclear power plants. Keep them in the context of the times they were written.

Every genius has a stumbling block. For Thomas Edison it was his insistance on direct current. Westinghouse's idea of AC current was a competition and an annoyance even though practicaly peaking power loss prevented long distance transmission of significant DC power across lines. Edison went to such lengths to kill the notion of AC that he even promoted it as a way of killing people (the electric chair) to turn people against AC current. It failed. That is good becaue it would have required a power plant on every city block in Manhatten in order to provide the necessary DC current that is provided by AC today.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not sure I would call them "stumbling blocks", rather "thinking tracks that happened to fail". It is easy to see what makes more sense in retrospect. The difference between a foolish idea and a genius is really often little more than luck and opportunity.

[atheistheretic]

The Bible, after all, does not tell us how the heavens go; it tells us how to go to heaven

It even gets that wrong. it tells us neither. the bible claims in matthew that only jewish people can be saved, in galations that anyone who disagrees with pauls gospel is from satan, AND THAT THE ACTUAL WITNESSES PREACHED A GOSPEL OTHER THAN PAULS. . and that pauls gospel comes from a vision not any historical evidence.

Every genius has a stumbling block. For Thomas Edison it was his insistance on direct current. Westinghouse's idea of AC current was a competition and an annoyance even though practicaly peaking power loss prevented long distance transmission of significant DC power across lines. Edison went to such lengths to kill the notion of AC that he even promoted it as a way of killing people (the electric chair) to turn people against AC current. It failed. That is good becaue it would have required a power plant on every city block in Manhatten in order to provide the necessary DC current that is provided by AC today.

You mean tesla? Thats Nikola Tesla. not westinghouse.

Also, keep in mind while reading that modern day science has moved far beyond Darwin's original theories. His works are not some "science bible" that all science minded people claim to be 100% infallible, but rather a starting point.

It would be like reading Thomas Edison's notes and then using them to comment on today's electricity distribution grid or nuclear power plants. Keep them in the context of the times they were written.

Rather, for a more modern view read the selfish gene

http://rapidshare.com/files/48481956/th ... awkins.pdf

[Iliad]

Darwin has the worst handwriting ever...

hey hey
I won't let Darwin take that award away from me

[MeDeFe]

Darwin has the worst handwriting ever...

hey hey
I won't let Darwin take that award away from me

From you? Sir, if you want to challenge me for the title, feel free to do so, but do not make false claims about holding it. I am still the undefeated champion.

[Iliad]

Darwin has the worst handwriting ever...

hey hey
I won't let Darwin take that award away from me

From you? Sir, if you want to challenge me for the title, feel free to do so, but do not make false claims about holding it. I am still the undefeated champion.

There totally should be a worst handwriting award

[PLAYER57832]

If there were, I would certainly get a nomination ... that's why I learned to type .. : )

[mybike_yourface]

Darwin has the worst handwriting ever...

like anyone can even know that!

[PLAYER57832]

Since folks still seem to want to discuss this on other threads, I figured I'd bump it up.

[Neoteny]

Since folks still seem to want to discuss this on other threads, I figured I'd bump it up.

Darwinian evolution naturally leads to the concept of Social Darwinism. Discuss.

[MeDeFe]

Since folks still seem to want to discuss this on other threads, I figured I'd bump it up.

Darwinian evolution naturally leads to the concept of Social Darwinism. Discuss.

Care to elaborate on the concept of Social Darwinism?

[PLAYER57832]

Since folks still seem to want to discuss this on other threads, I figured I'd bump it up.

Darwinian evolution naturally leads to the concept of Social Darwinism. Discuss.

Not quite. Though if you wish to discuss this it should be in another thread. Rather, say a MISUNDERSTANDING of Darwinism leads to social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism is the basis behind Nazism ... and a few other ideas. It says that societies and people operate on the "survival of the fittest" mode. However, as much as this is NOT the full truth in evolutionary theory, it is most certainly not the case, except in the very broadest terms, in reference to societies.

In genetics, random accidents are as much a part of end results as "survival of the fittest". A buck may have the best genes ever, but if he gets hit by a car before he can pass those genes on ... the gene line dies just as thoroughly (actually more quickly) than if he had weak genes that just caused him to die or not be able to mate.

In societies, it gets much, much more complicated. Were the Aztecs strong because they had the better society? OR, because climatary changes allowed that faction of the Mayan civilization to come to the fore. Were they defeated because they were weak socially .. or because they had no resistance to the european diseases. Lead poisoning was almost certainly a large part of why Roman civilization collapsed.

Recently, we have seen a general progression to eliminate slavery. I would certainly consider this a good evolution. Yet, a view of history shows that slavery could well return if the circumstances are right --- basically those in charge become too powerful to resist. If slavery is the only way to ensure your children survive, there are many who will choose that option.


Anyway, this is off the Creationist/Evolution debate. I am starting a new thread

[Neoteny]

Since folks still seem to want to discuss this on other threads, I figured I'd bump it up.

Darwinian evolution naturally leads to the concept of Social Darwinism. Discuss.

Not quite. Though if you wish to discuss this it should be in another thread. Rather, say a MISUNDERSTANDING of Darwinism leads to social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism is the basis behind Nazism ... and a few other ideas. It says that societies and people operate on the "survival of the fittest" mode. However, as much as this is NOT the full truth in evolutionary theory, it is most certainly not the case, except in the very broadest terms, in reference to societies.

In genetics, random accidents are as much a part of end results as "survival of the fittest". A buck may have the best genes ever, but if he gets hit by a car before he can pass those genes on ... the gene line dies just as thoroughly (actually more quickly) than if he had weak genes that just caused him to die or not be able to mate.

In societies, it gets much, much more complicated. Were the Aztecs strong because they had the better society? OR, because climatary changes allowed that faction of the Mayan civilization to come to the fore. Were they defeated because they were weak socially .. or because they had no resistance to the european diseases. Lead poisoning was almost certainly a large part of why Roman civilization collapsed.

Recently, we have seen a general progression to eliminate slavery. I would certainly consider this a good evolution. Yet, a view of history shows that slavery could well return if the circumstances are right --- basically those in charge become too powerful to resist. If slavery is the only way to ensure your children survive, there are many who will choose that option.


Anyway, this is off the Creationist/Evolution debate. I am starting a new thread

I don't think that'll be necessary. I was being facetious. Everyone knows social Darwinism is a direct product of elito-socio-masonic-arsenio-entero-politico mindset.