YES I know this is one of those trigger topics . . . That's why it's here and not in Anything Goes. This is mostly a venting of my personal grievances on this topic. If there's anyone who's offended by it, you are invited to ignore it's existance. So, that disclaimer having been put into place, if you continue to read, it's your choice. If you get offended or angry, it's your fault for not stopping when you had the choice. I don't want anyone attacking me or my belief's, just as I have always tried to never make a personal attack on this site unless it was deserved.

Not looking to stir up anything, just needing to vent, tho, if anyone wants to add to this in a calm, non argument causing manor, feel free.

I just seem to find myself in a unique, and highly stress causing posistion . . . I am a follower of Christ who also believes everything we, as a species, have learned about the creation of the universe is true. I've heard EVERY arguement in favor of Creationism and Intelligent Design, and I want to laugh EVERY time I hear those arguments simply because I see people who are either working from false teachings (Not their fault in the learning phase, but they now refuse to learn anything new) or that have been essentially mentally beaten into believing anything that someone who has established ranking in a Church structure is true.

The first problem I have with the standard arguments is that the current trend is to teach that The Bible, word for word, is the infallible Word of God. I, however, know for a fact that the scripture as we know it has been heavily edited time and time again (For instance, have you wondered at why we have the King James and New International Versions? Well, King James changed small parts of the Bible to reflect his personal tastes, as was his 'right' as the King of England, and therefore the Physical Embodyment of The Church in England. Verse 18 of Chapter 11 in Leviticus is the perfect example of this. The original verse, in the Tanakh reads:

Quote: and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the carrion-vulture;

in the discussion of animals unclean to eat. King James raised Swans and didn't want his pets being eaten, so he changed that verse to read:

Quote: And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

).
The Tanakh (The Hebrew bible, which we know of as the Old Testament) stands as being the closest to the original scripture, but even the Hebrew's know that the test has been altered, and recognise that we may never know what those changes are in order to correct them. So, based on accidentally incorrectly translated, or in some cases, willfully altered texts, the idea that the Bible as it stands today can not be taken as the whole truth, no matter which way you cut it.

So, getting past that issue, we move on to another translation issue, but this is of a higher level than Hebrew to Greek . . . It is widely accepted that the opening verses of Genesis are a direct translation of the Creation of the universe as told to man by God (or an angel. The speaker differs, even though the Source is ultimately the same.). The difficulty we find here is perception. Many take the usage of 6 days as God using a 24 hour clock. To this I say, 'HUH??' I know that God's never come to me to say that he uses the same time scale . . . and I'd tend to think that someone who's experience spans Eternity has a slightly larger scale of reference than that. So, shall we say, then, that the usage of the word 'Day' has more to do with establishing a scale more than it does to dictate LITERAL time?

And I have run into this response before, so I'll put it out: "Then if we do that with The Genesis, why not apply that same thought to the rest of the bible? Why couldn't the 40 days and 40 nights of rain realy have been 4000 years?" This was tossed at me by someone who was, in his own words, defending his faith. (Which, by the way, I hadn't attacked to begin with . . .) The answer? Simple . . . You can't, because this is the ONLY time in the bible that there is not a preexisting time scale to work from. When God and Jesus speak in such a way that the time scale changes in later verses, they will specifically state things like "A week is as to a year, a year is as a day".

Where do those last two paragraphs lead me to next? Adam . . . And the argument that he was created in a 24 hour period. I'll quote the same verse from three separate bibles (Tanakh, King James and NIV) for my next argument . . . Genesis Chapt 2, Verse 7.

Quote: Tanakh - Then HaShem G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. King James - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. NIV - the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

(Links were included to each of my sources)

Ok, so we have three translations of the same verse . . . One from as close to the original Hebrew as we can find, the others that came went from Hebrew to Greek to Aramaic to Latin to Olde English to modern English.

Notice that the word 'formed' is the same in all three examples. Also, the phrasing specifically shows that the forming came from the lowest form that they knew at the writing of the verse, dust, up to the finished Man.

'Formed' is a special word for me in this case. Forming something is a process. One that often leaves a traceable pattern in it's wake, especially if you are working in a medium that results in prototypes being cast off. Now, many take this to litterally mean that God sculpted Man as one would clay in 24 hours. I take it one step further and account for the proof that God has left all around us to find, and see that 'Forming' as having happened over the ages.

"But all of that evidence is either 'accidental' or 'extra bones' or 'trickery by Satan'!" Yah, I've heard all three . . . Especially the last. What all three of those statements tell me are that the speaker doesn't trust in The Almighty to watch over his progress to keep his imperfections from showing through (Aren't you, as followers supposed to believe that God is Infallible and Perfect? I know I sure do . . .) or that Satan is able to, at will, alter the very fabric of creation in order to trick us. Oh, yeah, that's what someone told me one time when the proven age of the Universe came up. "That's Satan playing with the scientists . . . The Universe is only 6,000 years old."

And now I touch on Intelligent Design. Something that they'd have you believe is 100% contradictory to Evolution. Funny, all I see is the addtion of someone in the driver's seat instead of chaos. However, what they aren't taking into acct is a new school of thought which scientists are using: In order for us to exist, the Universe HAD to have formed the way it formed and no other way. What they are saying now is that there is a tracable chain of events starting with Us at one end, and the Beginning of the Universe at the other. No randomness . . . I can't remember the exact quote, but the general meaning was "It's almost as if there is a driving force." They now seek to understand WHAT is pushing those buttons . . . Hey, looks like Intelligent Design, but instead of trying to fly in the face of established science, it's building itself up from that same science. I'm trying to remember the source of this quote, but I can remember it pretty much exactly as I read it as a boy of 12:

Quote: Why is it that Science and God are exclusive? It's the ultimate dream of science to once and for all prove the existence of God. Can you imagine what that would be like? To be the man who discovered the true Face of God?

Now, I don't want to make anyone any more bored than they already are by making another chapter to this, so I'm gonna sign off . . . If you have read this far, thanks. If you agree, please, let me know. If you disagree, let me know, as well. Just please accept that it's my God given right to believe that he's left these tracks for us to follow, and that I have followed them.

And to those of you who are sitting outside of the 'Believer' circle, I hope you can take some comfort in the fact that not all Christians are trying to keep established fact and science from being taught in the public schools. (On the other hand, to the millitant fundamentalists who are trying to drive science out of where it belongs, you do have your own schools in which to teach your 6000 year creationism as well as Intelligent Desing. Use them as the rest of us use the public schools, ok?)

So, in parting, again I merely wanted to vent this out before I took a shot of trying to physically shake loose some of the blocks some of the people I'm surrounded by have imposed upon themselves (Or have allowed others to continue imposing . . .). If anything, I hope I get a good conversation out of this at the very least.

D

Quote: So, getting past that issue, we move on to another translation issue, but this is of a higher level than Hebrew to Greek . . . It is widely accepted that the opening verses of Genesis are a direct translation of the Creation of the universe as told to man by God (or an angel. The speaker differs, even though the Source is ultimately the same.). The difficulty we find here is perception. Many take the usage of 6 days as God using a 24 hour clock. To this I say, 'HUH??' I know that God's never come to me to say that he uses the same time scale . . . and I'd tend to think that someone who's experience spans Eternity has a slightly larger scale of reference than that. So, shall we say, then, that the usage of the word 'Day' has more to do with establishing a scale more than it does to dictate LITERAL time?

Look up the case often referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Oh, and you forgot to mention Lillith.

My take?

Creationism? Every religion has their own set of events that created the universe. Why give validity to one over the other? A Christian holds a belief in theirs just as much as a Hindu does in theirs. Either way, I don't buy into it.

Intelligent Design? Creationism in the false guise of scientific language.

Evolution? While not perfect, it has offered up more proof than anything else.

Personally, I don't worry about it. It's a guarentee that everyone is going to find out about it within a few seconds after they are dead anyway.

Rob

P.S.

Oh, you've got + rep.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Personally, I don't worry about it. It's a guarentee that everyone is going to find out about it within a few seconds after they are dead anyway.

One of the reasons why I dont beleave in a God anymore, Screw it right? Why fight over something so simple, when we are all going to die and find out the truth anyway, Enjoy life and take it for granted.

Rob, thanks for the link to that trial. I wish more people knew about it.

Oy, let's not even start with the headaches I get over the whole "But she wasn't in the Bible, so she COULDN'T have existed!" people . . . One of these days I will invest in a printed copy of the Apocrypha. I am lucky in the fact that my wife's best friend is Jewish and has been providing us with a few books on the Hebrew histories and other stories that you won't find in the scriptures, but are taught the later years of Hebrew education, esp. pertaining to ancient Hebrew mysticism. Some fascinating stuff.

If God did exist it wouldn't be above him or her to create a universe with rules, like physics and genetics, and it could be plausible that everything science has discovered or tested, like evolution, is backed by God.

All in all I still back the idea of separation of religion and state.

Oh thank you for making this thread. +rep for you.

I'm a graduate student in Biochemistry and I see the effects of Evolution EVERY DAY. I've caused some bacteria to evolve myself. Any time I hear someone saying that ID or any of that other hogwash should be taught alongside evolution, I lose about 5 minutes off of my life span.

The part that I wish I could get people to understand is that evolution is exactly like gravity. We have a theory that can describe the force one mass will exert on another mass, dependent upon the distance between them. This tends to work out just fine (we got a few guys to the moon using this theory and other theories). Nobody can tell you, though, why two bodies exert force on one another. We just know that it happens, and we have some equations that describe what happens.

Evolution, in some ways, is even more developed than the theory of gravity (and in other ways less developed, I'll admit). We think we know why evolution occurs - it is a way for a species to adapt to its environment, therefore allowing more propagation of the species as a whole. We also have about 150 years of research under our belts since Darwin, and not only have we never once disproved evolution, we use that theory to base other predictions on!

In all honesty, this debate over evolution/ID is 100% absurd.

I think that some of the problem stems from the fact that many people (I might argue MOST people) don't understand what a scientist means when he says "proven" or "theory". By definition, no scientific theory is ever 100% proven. Scientists can be really damned sure, but there is always a slim chance that something will come along to change the theory, even if it's just a tiny amount. The other point is that a scientific theory is not the same as a "whodunit" theory on the weekly episode of C.S.I. Once an idea has evolved into a theory in science, that means it has been tested by several (usually many, and in evolution's case very very many) scientists, and has stood up to those tests.

For some other interesting reading on important subjects, check out:
Occam's Razor
the KISS principle
the Scientific Method
and Underdetermination

You also forgot to mention that some of the people that believe in ID or Creationism also believe that the earth is flat because Jesus supposedly could see all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain.

I personally believe the truth lies somewhere down the middle. I believe there is in fact a God, but not the being described in the bible, koran, torah or any other text or myth or whatever. This being created the universe, specified the rules that bind matter together and causes stars, planets and life to form. My opinion is that evolution was an intrinsic part of the design.

The earth itself has changed and evolved radically over the millenia, I really don't think it's so hard to believe that life also could change.

Just gotta say thanks to everyone who's replied. Makes me feel much better knowing that I'm not totally surrounded by people who are going to jump down my throat for thinking against the Doctrine. Each and every day it seems the good things I can say about the area that I live in get smaller and smaller due to the ignorance and intollerance that is taught in the local churches. Bless you all for giving me a place to recharge.

Quote: Originally Posted by drougnor YES I know this is one of those trigger topics . . . That's why it's here and not in Anything Goes. This is mostly a venting of my personal grievances on this topic. If there's anyone who's offended by it, you are invited to ignore it's existance. So, that disclaimer having been put into place, if you continue to read, it's your choice. If you get offended or angry, it's your fault for not stopping when you had the choice. I don't want anyone attacking me or my belief's, just as I have always tried to never make a personal attack on this site unless it was deserved.

If you post after me in this thread, you must pay me $100.00 for each post and stick a noodle up your nose.

So basically I can only post in this thread if I believe in what you believe. In order to know that, I have to read the posts, but I can't get upset by them. If I do, it's my own fault for reading the posts when you told me not to. How am I suppose to know if I will get offend or not if I don't read your post...

Apparently, this is a religous thread (I saw someone's post about Jesus and a flat earth?) and that's the reason for the disclaimer.

There's a lot of idiots out there claiming to be Christian. A lot of them, like Benny Hen, who claim things that are not in line with the Bible, yet they claim to be Christian. They are not Christian (Yes, I know, it's not PC for me to do that...The world can take it's PC attitude and shove it.)

What if Satan appeared in front of you and said "I'm a Christian" and then pitchforked a little old lady trying to cross the street.
Are you going to believe?
A) Christians are mean SOBs and hypocrates
B) Non-Christians will lie about being a Christian
C) Neither

My first sentence is my EULA which you are bound to.

...and you just turned it into a personal attack. He said that you were invited to ignore it. He's simply expressing his views and nothing more.

It helps when people express their views in a public forum such as this. It's healthy and a positive way to deal with any issues you are having. All he wanted was for someone to listen and know that he isn't alone.

What sucks is when someone goes out of their way to make a post such as yours, Timberwolf. Whether or not you agreed with him isn't the point. How you responded says a lot about your character. You could have simply chosen to ignore it.

Rob

I was actually recalling an article in the Times about Creationism and schools, it said only SOME and not all Christians believe that the earth is flat due to the aforementioned reason.

I'm not trying to slam on any belief because none of them has ever slammed on me.

Quote: Originally Posted by Hibiki You also forgot to mention that some of the people that believe in ID or Creationism also believe that the earth is flat because Jesus supposedly could see all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain.

well actually the argument that the world is flat because Jesus could see all the kingdoms is from people who didn't understand that the "world" in the Bible is centered on Israel and generally means what was known to them at the time.

As religious arguments can never be 100% convincing to either side, there's not much point to argue about it. Sure, you can express your views but most likely you're not going to convince someone differently from what they believe. As for Bionic's view that the ID/Creationism debate is 100% absurd, I would say that nothing in the world is 100%. How arrogant would someone have to be to say that their belief is 100% true and because of their own "studies" that all other beliefs aren't true. While I am a Christian, it doesn't mean that I still don't give credit to other people's beliefs. Evolution is a perfectly possibility in my mind but it doesn't mean that I don't give the same amount of credit to the idea that God created everything or used Intelligient Design. The truth of the matter is, we won't know as we don't have God's knowledge. By completing excluding other possibilities than your own, is putting yourself up on a pedestal to equate yourself with having the knowledge of God which is the original reason why Adam and Eve were punished. Going through the Bible, many of the people that were punished were punished because they tried to equate themselves with God such as the people who were building the Tower of Babel or some of the rulers mentioned in the Bible. As we don't know for sure how the world was created, we can't say that it was this way or that way with 100% certainty. Sure, we could have our own beliefs but to say that your way is the only right way is something I disagree with. Science changes over time as we learn more and more about the universe around us so nothing is 100%. Just take the argument that the world was flat and everything revolved around us. The smartest people believed this and then more information was found that said the earth is a sphere and we're not the center of the universe. Things can change as we find out more. The same goes for religious arguments because we don't know of all the texts that were lost or were not included in what we call today's Bible. The creation story we have in Genesis is already a conglomeration from 4 or 5 sources. Who's to say what other sources were there but were destroyed or yet to be found? As my paster put it, its one of the mysteries of the faith. I don't believe that science and religion are exclusive and that they can and will back each other up as we find out more.

Yeah, only the real hardliners actually believe that the world is flat, that Harry Potter is the devil, that science must make way for Creationism dispite social protocols and evidence, that the Bible must be taken literally, and that Kyle actually knows s*** about modern computing.

Everyone else can actually take religion and science and find some reasonable way to inlcude both in his or her general understanding of the universe.

Everyone is entitled to believe or not to believe in anything. I personally don't believe in Creationism or ID, but it is not my place to enforce the idea as being the only one.

I don't care how we got to where we are today, all I know is that dying is gonna be pretty fricking sweet.

When I do croak, all I gotta do is figure out a way to come back and tell everyone they're all wrong and the universe as we know it is just an experiment in an alien lab or something.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob ...and you just turned it into a personal attack. He said that you were invited to ignore it. He's simply expressing his views and nothing more. It helps when people express their views in a public forum such as this. It's healthy and a positive way to deal with any issues you are having. All he wanted was for someone to listen and know that he isn't alone. What sucks is when someone goes out of their way to make a post such as yours, Timberwolf. Whether or not you agreed with him isn't the point. How you responded says a lot about your character. You could have simply chosen to ignore it. Rob

My comment:

Quote: So basically I can only post in this thread if I believe in what you believe. In order to know that, I have to read the posts, but I can't get upset by them. If I do, it's my own fault for reading the posts when you told me not to. How am I suppose to know if I will get offend or not if I don't read your post...

Was to point out a catch-22. It was not a personal attack.

Quote: Apparently, this is a religous thread (I saw someone's post about Jesus and a flat earth?) and that's the reason for the disclaimer.

This was to point out that it appears to be a thread surrounding religion.

Quote: There's a lot of idiots out there claiming to be Christian. A lot of them, like Benny Hen, who claim things that are not in line with the Bible, yet they claim to be Christian. They are not Christian (Yes, I know, it's not PC for me to do that...The world can take it's PC attitude and shove it.)

This was to point out that people like Benny Hen hurt what Christians believe in to further their own personal greed. At no point in drougnor's post did I read anything that would have linked him to Benny.



And if by character you mean that I'm a Jesus Freak. You're right, I am. In fact, the act of challenging what he hears is what is required of Christians. And as one Christian to another, it's fair to warn him of problems that have been seen and people that we need to be leery of.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dex I don't care how we got to where we are today, all I know is that dying is gonna be pretty fricking sweet. When I do croak, all I gotta do is figure out a way to come back and tell everyone they're all wrong and the universe as we know it is just an experiment in an alien lab or something.

It think thats why ghosts/sprits exsist..

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz It think thats why ghosts/sprits exsist..

I agree.

Although why they choose to scare people instead of informing the world that we've all got it wrong, escapes me.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear in my wording in that disclaimer . . . I didn't mean to imply AT ALL that you weren't welcome to post if you didn't believe in what I believe, and if you took it for that, then I'm sorry.

What was intended was "This is a touchy subject. People will disagree with me. You are free to disagree with me. Those who wish to disagree with me in an intelligent and adult manner are welcome. Those who wish to be ignorant, start a fight, or otherwise act like children are free to ignore the thread."

As Rob stated, I was in desparate need for a friendly ear.

Now, I will say you do have a good point about most of the ppl who claime to be Christian. It was best said to be sometime this last year - "Going to Church makes you no more Christian than standing in the garage makes you a Chevy."

It's for that reason that I have been unable to attend Church since I was in my early teens. There were far too many fakers or people who were more concerned with the appearance that they attended than for the actual lessons. Not to mention the multitudes of 'teachers' of the Word who either misquote passages, quote without context (which often leads to gross misunderstandings, especially about prophecy in scripture), or refusing to understand that the document they are quoting from is no longer the document it was originally intended to be.

So I once again thank you all for your input, and for making sure that I have an ear. G'night!

Erad, good post. Usually I would quote bits of it here, but I'm in a hurry b/c I have work to do, but here is my response:

By saying that the debate was "absurd" what I meant was that if you try to say that the two ideas (Evolution and I.D.) have equivalent scientific merit, then we might as well stop doing science right now, because we have just stepped into the fun world of underdetermination. If you read that Wikipedia article I linked, you will see that without applying such criteria such as Occam's razor to a scientific theory or argument, it is for all intents and purposes impossible to do any science whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that there is zero evidence proving intelligent design, and also zero evidence disproving evolution, therefore evolution is the only theory that can be tought in science class. It is entirely possible, (although in my belief also improbable) that there was some original "designer" who set the universe in motion. This doesn't necessarily conflict with the tested theory of evolution, so it's possible that it could be true. It's also possible that gravity could stop for 30 minutes on July 1, 2015. Keep in mind that something like 99.9% of all the species that have ever been on the earth are now extinct, so this hypothetical designer, although intelligent, must have needed some serious practice.

My point is simply that science and belief must be kept separate in our classrooms, until factual evidence is uncovered to change the theory.