[_ Old Earth _] How God did it,... I'm all ears....

[Arch Angle]

Iagree with you are saying here. Again, this is a different issue to me. That we need to be careful with skewing data to match our perceptions. I agree 100%with you.

I am only interested if the similarities are 'real" or a "fallacy'. Being of the sort that people are very close to being the same 6000 years ago as they are today, I think the smart guys back then were pretty darn close with the observations they had.

People coming from dirt implies that they saw a process in the formation of man from something else, to"man". And that there may be a hierarchy of structure in what they saw around them. Smaller things interacting to form bigger things. they just didn't know what it was. Like us with dark matter today.

So I don't think the similaritiesare "a fallacy". I think people use the information wrong today. They take it out of context. Were they woefullyincomplete back then? yes, but only because we know so much more.

God doing it, is abelief. I don't believe in a "poof there it is god". But claiming that the people back then saw it as a process in the working of the universe is pretty valid I think. Or at least, not a "fallacy".

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

Iagree with you are saying here. Again, this is a different issue to me. That we need to be careful with skewing data to match our perceptions. I agree 100%with you.

I am only interested if the similarities are 'real" or a "fallacy'. Being of the sort that people are very close to being the same 6000 years ago as they are today, I think the smart guys back then were pretty darn close with the observations they had.

People coming from dirt implies that they saw a process in the formation of man from something else, to"man". And that there may be a hierarchy of structure in what they saw around them. Smaller things interacting to form bigger things. they just didn't know what it was. Like us with dark matter today.

So I don't think the similaritiesare "a fallacy". I think people use the information wrong today. They take it out of context. Were they woefullyincomplete back then? yes, but only because we know so much more.

God doing it, is abelief. I don't believe in a "poof there it is god". But claiming that the people back then saw it as a process in the working of the universe is pretty valid I think. Or at least, not a "fallacy".

I see where you're coming from, and it's an interesting point. I suppose it's possible that the people writing these "stories" (or whatever one wants to call them), were writing them from a more informed basis than people assume, and I certainly couldn't, nor would I, deny that as a possibility, but it's never really highlighted where the information comes from. If this was true, any method these people may have used for finding this information was never printed with the rest, and without that information, in my opinion, it's still a story. So in regards to whether these similarities are "real" or "fallacy", I guess my position would be one of doubt. Due the vagueness of the similarities, I would ascertain that they are in fact fallacy, but admit I couldn't say that with any kind of certainty. With absence of evidence one is forced to draw no concrete conclusion.

 

[Arch Angle]

yes, I agree.

I think we call it "historical content".

Then it gets down to a limited number of possibilities. Is it more reasonable to say they were people like us, in the middle, that did the best they could with what they had. All the while having knimkin poops around blowing off about this or that and messing everything up?

one look around, at least where I live, it seems to be very probable. look at history, look at us today, we are insane sometimes. pastand and present. :gah

 

[cupid dave]

I have no end game, I assure you. I'm just stating my position, and I never said that my position was absolute. Also, I didn't make a claim, I think you misunderstood, or I didn't explain myself very well. Yes, I said that if Genesis was true it would match some of the conclusions that scientist have made (obviously), but what I was trying to say is that just because one can find similarities between two separate statements, is not proof for the validity of the statement.

A = Christian Creation
X = Islam Creation
Y = Buddhist Creation
B = Scientists Theories

We know that A≠X≠Y
If we know that A=B, we expect that A would share some similarities with B
However, if all we know is that A,X and Y share some similarities with B, we don't conclude that A=B

To use a previously used example, yes, if one is looking he can see some parallels between God creating light, and the big bang. If we assume that God is the truth here, this does not prove the big bang. Equally so, if we assume that the big bang is the truth here, it does not prove that God created light. (Edit: It should be noted that it doesn't disprove it either)

I acknowledge that one can see these similarities, and admit I can see them too if I'm looking for them, but such similarities could be found in just about anything, and thus I do not think it viable proof. For someone in a different position, perhaps it is a viable proof, and that's fine, I won't argue what they believe, but see no problem in stating that I believe different.

..."Prove" is a poor term to use since proving something infers the other people accept it, which is totally up to them.

We can only present our evidence and ideas and hope hey will become convinced.
Science people accept the Scientific Method, which the Pope refused to acknowledge when he turned Galileo down and would not peer thru the telescope.

What we are concerned with here is whether Genesis is read in a way which defies science or whether what is said can be understood as corresponding to what science claims about whole cosmic unfolding.

Those people who deny that Genesis conforms with the theories of Science are Fundamentalists who attack science, while the others who who deny Gensis corresponds to scientific facts are atheist who attack the bible while pretending to attack the Fundamentalist b-view of the bible.
Thats the rub.

The Fundamentalists are easy prey for the Bill Mahers and the atheists and the Gays and every enemy of the churches.
But they attack becomes generalized against religion and the bible.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

..."Prove" is a poor term to use since proving something infers the other people accept it, which is totally up to them.

Proof is a perfectly valid term dependent on a general of consensus of validity regarding the means with which said proof was attained. In my example, I held the position that within these two hypotheses, no "proof" could exist for either position.

We can only present our evidence and ideas and hope hey will become convinced.
Science people accept the Scientific Method, which the Pope refused to acknowledge when he turned Galileo down and would not peer thru the telescope.

I would argue that we all use the scientific method every day, and within the scientific method, it's not so much about convincing any person to sway to one position or the other, but rather observing what the scientific method has not ruled out. In an example where neither position could be ruled out by scientific method (assuming there were only 2 positions), that is when evidence is weighed against each position to sway opinion to one side or the other.

What we are concerned with here is whether Genesis is read in a way which defies science or whether what is said can be understood as corresponding to what science claims about whole cosmic unfolding.

I agreed that if read with a certain interpretation in mind, one could see a correspondence with the current scientific claims, that is to say, it's rather ambiguous, but far be it from me to rule it out, I couldn't if I tried, and that's not why I'm here.

Those people who deny that Genesis conforms with the theories of Science are Fundamentalists who attack science, while the others who who deny Gensis corresponds to scientific facts are atheist who attack the bible while pretending to attack the Fundamentalist b-view of the bible.
Thats the rub.

I don't quite understand, so are you saying that both fundamentalists and atheists are in agreement that Genesis does not conform to scientific theory? I think this is a blatant generalisation of a very broad spectrum of people with a very diverse group of beliefs, within atheism and within creationism. Many creationists at least attempt to reconcile creationism with current scientific facts; I wouldn't agree with any of them, but they would certainly argue that science is in direct correlation to Genesis.

The Fundamentalists are easy prey for the Bill Mahers and the atheists and the Gays and every enemy of the churches.
But they attack becomes generalized against religion and the bible.

I don't think so. Sure, there certainly are militant atheists out there who do openly attack the bible, and Bill Mahers might be a little bit inside that camp, I'd put Dawkins in that camp too, but not all atheists hold that position, and some gays would even call themselves "Christian" (whether or not you believe that to be true is at your own discretion). Putting all atheists and gays under one umbrella... that's a vast generalisation. It's a very diverse group of people of which I am one. I have nothing at all against religion, and while I may voice my own position, I try to make it as clear as possible that it is just my own position, and not a position I think everyone should hold. I don't think fundamentalists are stupid, I think that some of them are ignorant, but I bet I look like an idiot to most believers, and it's not hard to see why. As far as a believer is concerned, I've chosen Damnation over Salvation, and while I don't think that's the case, if it is the case, then I am pretty stupid, so I don't see any reason to get upset about Christians calling me an idiot, because from where they're standing, I am.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Many creationists at least attempt to reconcile creationism with current scientific facts; I wouldn't agree with any of them, but they would certainly argue that science is in direct correlation to Genesis.

I agree that they would argue that "science" is in direct correlation with creationism, but I think that Cupid Dave is referring to mainstream science. For instance, AnswersInGenesis and the Creation Museum are a far cry from mainstream science. To put it more simply, anyone who disagrees with mainstream science does just that. They disagree with mainstream science.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

I agree that they would argue that "science" is in direct correlation with creationism, but I think that Cupid Dave is referring to mainstream science. For instance, AnswersInGenesis and the Creation Museum are a far cry from mainstream science. To put it more simply, anyone who disagrees with mainstream science does just that. They disagree with mainstream science.

I agree that creation science is a far cry from mainstream science, but many creation scientists would argue that it isn't (even though it is), that it is in fact only opposed to current dating methods and evolution; specifically macroevolution as described by creationists, but really this is just evolution (in the opinion of myself and mainstream science). Gosh, its difficult to be unbiased sometimes

 

[Arch Angle]

creationist scientist? In a room full of reasonable people they stand out like sore thumbs. I mean in every profession we have outliners. We can polity listen, and walk away.

No I think you are pretty unbiased dawk. Your points are valid and so are cupids.

I wouldn't consider "main stream" science and scientistas the same thing though. Just a small pointfor most, but since we are kind of hot on this topic it is important I think. "science" is just data collection . The method of data collection can be main stream or not. Scientist, then look at the data to see how they inter relate.

They then come up with a story that seems tomatch it. Like plate tectonics story does. "main stream" means most scientist agree on the conclusion. You can have main stream "science" performed by "crazo scientist".

The evidence, is then looked at by a lot of people. Via, we hope, The scientific method. And we do the best we can understanding how the data relates and what conclusion can be drawn from it. Like micro vs. macro evolution. When people have to separate the two to support their view, that should be an indication that they are beginning to skew "data" to support a "belief". Instead of visa versa.

Genesis main claim, if you are not a literalist, is that god did it. It claims god used pieces of"universe" to make the stuff we see. That fits kind of nicely I think. That god went "poof" there it is. Big bang? poof? seems to fit ok.

god did it through evolution is a valid claim.

Now, is there a god,? Is more of your point I think. That can be discussed. But genesis, can be, by reasonable atheist, be seen to fit observations.

also, fundamentalist. is that a personality type or abelief. List the traits of a "fundamentalist". I mean, I see what I call "fundamentalist atheist". what is your thought on that?

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

creationist scientist? In a room full of reasonable people they stand out like sore thumbs. I mean in every profession we have outliners. We can polity listen, and walk away.

No I think you are pretty unbiased dawk. Your points are valid and so are cupids.

I wouldn't consider "main stream" science and scientistas the same thing though. Just a small pointfor most, but since we are kind of hot on this topic it is important I think. "science" is just data collection . The method of data collection can be main stream or not. Scientist, then look at the data to see how they inter relate.

They then come up with a story that seems tomatch it. Like plate tectonics story does. "main stream" means most scientist agree on the conclusion. You can have main stream "science" performed by "crazo scientist".

The evidence, is then looked at by a lot of people. Via, we hope, The scientific method. And we do the best we can understanding how the data relates and what conclusion can be drawn from it. Like micro vs. macro evolution. When people have to separate the two to support their view, that should be an indication that they are beginning to skew "data" to support a "belief". Instead of visa versa.

Genesis main claim, if you are not a literalist, is that god did it. It claims god used pieces of"universe" to make the stuff we see. That fits kind of nicely I think. That god went "poof" there it is. Big bang? poof? seems to fit ok.

god did it through evolution is a valid claim.

Now, is there a god,? Is more of your point I think. That can be discussed. But genesis, can be, by reasonable atheist, be seen to fit observations.

also, fundamentalist. is that a personality type or abelief. List the traits of a "fundamentalist". I mean, I see what I call "fundamentalist atheist". what is your thought on that?

Genesis doesn't actually claim that God used pieces of the "universe" to make the stuff we see, that has be to be ones predisposition in order for one to read it that way. I mean, even if we look at the very first couple of versus, it is, unless interpreted a specific way, very different to what current scientists determine from the scientific method.

Genesis Chapter 1, versus 1-2 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

This is contradictory to the scientific belief that light came before earth; long before earth could even be described as "formless" in fact (whatever that means, before it was fully formed, it wouldn't even be earth).

If we look further down to creation of some animals we see this -

Genesis chapter 1 versus 20-21 - Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

How does this fit nicely with God using pieces of the universe to make stuff? It says nothing about how these things were made other than that He told them to exist. Again, this is contrary to current evidence, unless one is under the belief that while it my say they were spoken into existence, what it "actually" means to say it that they were made from the stuff in the universe. Genesis doesn't "actually" say that, it has to be interpreted that way by one looking for that answer.

As I've stated I accept that one can make the story fit, but it doesn't really fit, it's made to fit. At least that's what I take away from this. Perhaps I'm just not a reasonable atheist.

I would describe a fundamentalist within Christianity as one who believes literally what the bible says, without interpreting it in any way to fit to scientific views (or at least the views of mainstream scientists). In regards to fundamental atheism, I don't think such a position really exists, it is an oxymoron. Fundamentalism suggests forming a necessary base or core, which is at odds with the lack of a necessary core within atheism. There is no prerequisite of atheism other than a position of disbelief.

As to whether there is a God, this is not a point I'm not trying to advocate either way. I don't believe one exists, but I also believe that everyone's belief is justified with him/herself one way or another.

 

[Arch Angle]

that's a literal interpretation. I don'tclaim genesis as "literal". Ifyou take the bible literally then you can make the claim of dirt not beingpieces of the universe. Although, I amsure you see the problem. I am not using it literally. I don't use the bible for how to "make acherry pie". Or in this case the"earth.

did the scientist of that time interpreted the data they hadin a reasonable fashion. Yes, woefully incomplete. Like the distance from the earth to the sunusing triangles was short. But the sunwas far away.

But, that man came for "dirt", you don't thinkthat fits? That they may have seen theprocesses that we see today? like a manwith wings drawling, doesn't that show men thought they could fly, given theright tools? they just didn't draw anairplane?

 

[Arch Angle]

can anybody tell me for the love of god (or love of no-god, out of respect for dawk)

why my words get stuck together when I pat them from MS Word.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

that's a literal interpretation. I don'tclaim genesis as "literal". Ifyou take the bible literally then you can make the claim of dirt not beingpieces of the universe. Although, I amsure you see the problem. I am not using it literally. I don't use the bible for how to "make acherry pie". Or in this case the"earth.

did the scientist of that time interpreted the data they hadin a reasonable fashion. Yes, woefully incomplete. Like the distance from the earth to the sunusing triangles was short. But the sunwas far away.

But, that man came for "dirt", you don't thinkthat fits? That they may have seen theprocesses that we see today? like a manwith wings drawling, doesn't that show men thought they could fly, given theright tools? they just didn't draw anairplane?

I'm not so sure man coming from dirt does fit necessarily. I'm not sure what reasonable observation might lead one to believe that? Perhaps the dirt was the same colour? How could we say that these people were right in saying that man comes from dirt when man came from ape? Life probably came from the sea, not dirt, but at any rate, what process did they see that lead them to believe man came from dirt, but didn't come from evolution?

Men with drawings of wings show that they wanted to fly, not that they thought they could. Even if they did think they could, it doesn't suggest that they were aware of advancements that would take place in the future, in suggests that they were ignorant of the science. If I draw a time machine, it doesn't mean that one day we will invent a time machine; without science behind the concept it's just a drawing of a non-functioning, not real, time machine. A fiction.

 

[Dumac_Dwarfking]

(or love of no-god, out of respect for dawk)

My inclusion is greatly appreciated

I think it's because of the attributes that get copied over with it (font size, font type). Copy from MS Word to notepad, and then to the forum, it should work then.

 

[Arch Angle]

Well, you know I agree with your premise. I guess I am just on the other side of the stance. I am not literal. I don't care if dirt is similar to atoms. It is the process that interest me. Not the "Lego" pieces. They saw "pieces of something" forming "something else" to me. But again, maybe your right too.
so it gets back to probability for me. Is it more likely they saw things going on around then and put thing together the best they could? Or is it more reasonable to think they made up a story based on random selection of events around them?
But of course, you make very good points. We can't be sure.

why should we claim no similarities?
what evidence do we use to say there is none?

 

[Arch Angle]

another piece that might your support your stance.

Of all the creation stories, one was bound to look similar.

This does not give any person of a religion the right to claim superiority over the people of another religion. I think most people would agree. Killing you in the name of a loving god that is better than your loving god (or no-god) is quite insane.

 

[cupid dave]

I'm not so sure man coming from dirt does fit necessarily. I'm not sure what reasonable observation might lead one to believe that? Perhaps the dirt was the same colour? How could we say that these people were right in saying that man comes from dirt when man came from ape? Life probably came from the sea, not dirt, but at any rate, what process did they see that lead them to believe man came from dirt, but didn't come from evolution?
.

The verse says that God created man from the "dust" of the earth.

The first observation ought be that the first man apparently had no parents.

The theory of Evolution tell sus that we have evolved from common ancestors.
But then, if we check out the meaning of the word "dust," it does support the idea that ther was some chemistry involved in this creative process, suggesting that the "dust of the earth" refers to the atoms that make chemical reactions take plce.

With these ideas in mind, it beaomes very reasonable to understand that this refers to the Act-of-God, wherein two or the 24 Ape chromosomes fused together@ 6-7 million years ago.
In the womb of that surrogate Ape, this fusion created a new creature in God, one that had no parents common to it, but a man that is not an Ape.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presentsvery strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locuscloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomerefusion and marks the point atwhich two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.


Add to this insight the support of scripture which seems to be iuntentional stated subtly just in order to support the observation and interpretations made here, as if it was clear to the Bibe writers that this perspective would need such augmentation:



Gen 5:2 Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species),in the day when THEY were created.

 

[Adam]

There is no such thing as a man who is not an ape.

 

[cupid dave]

Well, you know I agree with your premise. I guess I am just on the other side of the stance. I am not literal. I don't care if dirt is similar to atoms. It is the process that interest me. Not the "Lego" pieces. They saw "pieces of something" forming "something else" to me. But again, maybe your right too.
so it gets back to probability for me. Is it more likely they saw things going on around then and put thing together the best they could? Or is it more reasonable to think they made up a story based on random selection of events around them?
But of course, you make very good points. We can't be sure.

why should we claim no similarities?
what evidence do we use to say there is none?

GREAT OBSERVATION... "what evidence do we use to say there is none."

None.
They use absolutely no "evidence", these present churches/denominations that resist the Theistic Evolution interpretation which DOES refer to scientific evidence in support of Genesis CORRESPONDING with what the Facts of science.

What these other long standing explanations of Genesis, (by the various religious organizations), DO rely upon is some, one, man who started their denomination centuries ago, and their acceptance of what is now their "party line."

We can check back to Jerry Falwell, who started the American Fundamentalism, where he initiated Stone-walling.
He started the "God said it" claim he made.
The YECs in particular are "using" only that.

They misread Genesis then insist that "God said it."

 

[Adam]

Well, if there is no evidence for either of two positions, by default we go with "none."


Innocent until proven guilty.... why do we take that position?


Or how about that famous atheist qutation "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Or in probability, why do we consider the null hypothesis?



You can't just assert things are true because there isn't evidence against them.

 

[cupid dave]

I'm not sure what reasonable observation might lead one to believe...

.

The key word here is "reasonable."

The medieval interpretations of Genesis were ALL "reasonable," but within what is called the social paradigm of the time.
What seemed "reasonable" by which the interpretations were constructed, by men living in that Age, was within the frame work of the paradigm for reasoning.

It is recursive to say that reasoning was sound because it was reasonable in accord with the paradigm they applied that they reasoning from.

What is all so clear is that, Smith, Weseley, Russell, et al,i.e.; the "fathers" of the present denominational churches which are still spouting the reasonable ideas of those centuries long past, all ignore the present Paradigm Shift into Empirical Science.