http://biologos.org/questions/early-int ... of-genesis (http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis)
QuoteGiven the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
QuoteIntroduction
Many people assume that Darwin's theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin's theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen's views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4
I've said on here a few times that Genesis was Allegorical. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal Genesis is absurd on its face. The forbidden fruit is about the fallen state of man, not a literal sin committed by Eve. Silly Christians should do their homework.
Please note that when I say "agrees with Darwin" in the title doesn't mean I specifically believe that, its just the title of the article.
Apparently I need to do my homework as well, I didn't know some early Christians thought that way.
This is a conundrum with true believers, because the babble is thought to be literal truth, and therefore infallible. But my Bible (English major) class stated emphatically that is was allegorical; then if not literal truth it can be interpreted differently. There goes claims of infallibility, sorry to say.
I read things like this and still find myself trying to find ways to prove the Bible has to be literal. I'm nearly 3 years out of it... C'thulu help those still in it to see the Genesis that way.
Well, even Bible writers had brains and eyes. They may have even had some knowledge, or have heard from a friend who heard from a friend about some actual observable facts.
Then you layer on the BS.
The conundrum is with the Pauline doctrine. No Adam & Eve, no original sin. No original sin, nothing for jesus to save us from.
Quote from: "Agramon"I read things like this and still find myself trying to find ways to prove the Bible has to be literal. I'm nearly 3 years out of it... C'thulu help those still in it to see the Genesis that way.
I was raised a Southern Baptist, and even at ten or eleven had begun to internalize the Genesis-as-allegory view, without any formal education in the interpretation.
Interesting. I didn't realize that those sorts of ideas went back that far. Too bad more modern-day Christians don't abandon the notion of a literal 6-day creation and all of the baggage that goes with it. It simply isn't supportable by any evidence whatsoever.
As I was raised Catholic, the genesis as allegory thing, god setting evolution in motion was exactly what I was taught. Adam and Eve was also allegorical, being the first humans who god caused to evolve into actual humans. I do not think I ever thought about that nullifying the reason for Jesus to die...seems like Christians, myself included at that time, often overlook the details like that. I expect there is some official rcc appologetic explanation for this. I would wish for Azzi to be here to explain it, but I am not feeling masochistic tonight. :lol:
The modern hyper-literal reading of the Bible is actually the result of a backlash against Darwin's theory. Evolution was seen as a threat because if humans could evolve from less intelligent animals, we weren't special-made chillins of Gawd no more. We were just animals, like everybody else. So the Genesis account of special creation began to have more and more importance among Conservative Christians as "proof" that we were created, not merely evolved.
Racism played a huge part in the discussion as well. Remember, blacks were still bought and sold as property, and if we were all simply products of evolution then all those non-white inferior people were actually our complete equals, and all of us were merely localized varieties of Homo Sapiens. White Civilized Europeans and Americans could not stand the thought that they were no better than those uncivilized heathen blacks or indians or asians. The more ignorant and racist the Christian, the more likely they were to cling to the idea of human superiority, and especially white superiority.
Darwin's cry of "the white male emperor has no clothes!" was, oddly enough, the catalyst that created Biblical literalism.
Quote from: "Aroura33"As I was raised Catholic, the genesis as allegory thing, god setting evolution in motion was exactly what I was taught.
Same. Liberalish Methodist upbringing. I never understood the whole "God vs Evolution" framing of the issue until I met creationists. (They might as well call it God vs Gravity for all the sense it makes to me) To me, it is and will always be an issue of science vs denialism. The fact that the denialism is usually religious in nature is simply a happy coincidence for me. Two birds with one stone. :)
I use scientific discoveries against the faithful only if and when they make it an issue (if they want to falsify their religion so badly, I'll oblige them), but I understand that not all Christians feel that way.
But I don't even try to debate what texts should be taken literally or allegorically. If their religion is supernaturalistic, as it invariably is, I need only ask for evidence to support this claim and find nothing (or worse than nothing) in response. Outsider tests are lethal and I make good use of them. Why go through all the trouble of hashing out scripture and get mired there when a single moment of introspection is so much more direct and devastating? :-D
Christians are usually heavily compartmentalized. One need only unseparate the compartments. After all, it worked for me.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Aroura33"As I was raised Catholic, the genesis as allegory thing, god setting evolution in motion was exactly what I was taught.
Same. Liberalish Methodist upbringing. I never understood the whole "God vs Evolution" framing of the issue until I met creationists. (They might as well call it God vs Gravity for all the sense it makes to me) To me, it is and will always be an issue of science vs denialism. The fact that the denialism is usually religious in nature is simply a happy coincidence for me. Two birds with one stone. :)
I use scientific discoveries against the faithful only if and when they make it an issue (if they want to falsify their religion so badly, I'll oblige them), but I understand that not all Christians feel that way.
But I don't even try to debate what texts should be taken literally or allegorically. If their religion is supernaturalistic, as it invariably is, I need only ask for evidence to support this claim and find nothing (or worse than nothing) in response. Outsider tests are lethal and I make good use of them. Why go through all the trouble of hashing out scripture and get mired there when a single moment of introspection is so much more direct and devastating? :-D
Christians are usually heavily compartmentalized. One need only unseparate the compartments. After all, it worked for me.
A brilliant post, imo.
Wholesale biblical literalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon.
Genesis it so full of ambiguities it can agree with fairies at the bottom of the garden. I this case the garden called Eden.
Quote from: "billhilly"The conundrum is with the Pauline doctrine. No Adam & Eve, no original sin. No original sin, nothing for Jesus to save us from.
^^ That. And the whole edifice comes down. However, muslims do not face this problem, it works better for them. :)
I'd like to point out that BOTH Greek and Indian philosophers were familiar with the idea of life (including humans) evolving otr having evolved from a "simpler" state. In regards to the Indian philosophers, IIRC their awareness of the idea of evolution was present THOUSANDS of years before any sort of recognizable Judaism or Hebrew Text.
Also, isn't it funny how anything in the BuyBull can be squared simply by saying that., despite the fact that the text says X, Y and Z with no declaration or hint of intending it as allegory, it doesn't actually mean that literally.
-_-
Quote from: "stromboli"http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis
QuoteGiven the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
QuoteIntroduction
Many people assume that Darwin's theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin's theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen's views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4
I've said on here a few times that Genesis was Allegorical. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal Genesis is absurd on its face. The forbidden fruit is about the fallen state of man, not a literal sin committed by Eve. Silly Christians should do their homework.
Please note that when I say "agrees with Darwin" in the title doesn't mean I specifically believe that, its just the title of the article.
So the earth is indeed older than the sun? Animals all popped into existence at the same time just before, or just after, man (depending on which chapter one reads)? The earth was first covered by water before there was land? And yet life began on this planet on land, and not the sea?
The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge. We speak of people who were far more advanced in science, architecture, engineering, medicine, philosophy, metallurgy, navigation, mathematics et cetera ad nauseam than people were during the medieval ages a thousand years later. All thanks to the quashing of science and the scientific principles conducted by the Church.
Genesis was written by people who thought what was written was factual. These opinions were then later challenged, at times by church leaders themselves, in an effort to reconcile their bible with our growing (and in many cases rediscovered) understanding about our world.
And Darwin never set out to challenge the Creation Myth, nor does his work form the only argument for evolution. He is simply an easy target for those who have nothing to challenge the Evolution Theory other than their faith in their scriptures. Scripture, mind you, that are easily disproved.
And that is ignoring the little fact that Darwin proposed a hypothesis concerning Evolution, and not Abiogensis, a different scientific discipline.
Humans have been breeding dogs, cattle and food for thousands of years. We knew. We've known for a long time.
Oh, BTW...
The 6,000 year old earth thing is taken from counting the unbroken lineage from Adam to Abraham as found in the bible, not from Genesis.
Also, Genesis is an attempt to make Jehovah out to be THE god who created everything, to create the ultimate authority in Jehovah and his laws. Genesis doesn't work out as allegory, as it destroys any need to worship Jehovah, or follow Abrahamic laws, for the self-preservation of one's "immortal soul".
Creationists are the people who piss me off the most, because every time we show them PROOF that the Earth was created in a long process over BILLIONS of years, with no input from a supernatural source whatsoever, they just ignore it and pretend they never heard it.
The Earth formed around the Sun as rock and gas were pulled together by gravity and molded into a sphere at which point the rock at the center melted to form the core. The planet took its complete spherical form around 4.5 Billion years ago, and from there, and after a major impact from a moon-sized body, an atmosphere formed and the geology of the Earth began to take form. 2 Billion years ago, the first signs of life formed and now, 2 Billion years later, here we are. There is irrefutable evidence to prove this and ongoing research to better understand the process and gain a fuller picture, but we still understand how the earth formed and how life came to be. However, there is not a single shread of evidence to support Creationism or any of it's implications.
If creationist actually did their research and accepted the proof, they would undoubtfully see that Genesis is bullshit. As is God, for that matter.
Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"Creationists are the people who piss me off the most, because every time we show them PROOF that the Earth was created in a long process over BILLIONS of years, with no input from a supernatural source whatsoever, they just ignore it and pretend they never heard it.
Bone to pick here. Bit of haphazard use of the word "proof". 'Tis evidence which is used as an indicator of probable, not final, truth. ;)
QuoteThe Earth formed around the Sun as rock and gas were pulled together by gravity and molded into a sphere at which point the rock at the center melted to form the core. The planet took its complete spherical form around 4.5 Billion years ago, and from there, and after a major impact from a moon-sized body, an atmosphere formed and the geology of the Earth began to take form. 2 Billion years ago, the first signs of life formed and now, 2 Billion years later, here we are. There is irrefutable evidence to prove this and ongoing research to better understand the process and gain a fuller picture, but we still understand how the earth formed and how life came to be. However, there is not a single shread of evidence to support Creationism or any of it's implications.
If creationist actually did their research and accepted the proof, they would undoubtfully see that Genesis is bullshit. As is God, for that matter.
No evidence is irrefutable. Science is dynamic. Newton's Laws and Cosmological conclusions could've been labelled "irrefutable", but the along comes Laplace a century later improving and fixing Newton's models of the Solar System.
And i would hesitate against merely saying all Creationists just need to "do research" and "accept the proof", as it implies all of them are engaging in willfull rejection, when much of the time they simply aren't convinced. To borrow from AronRa: Remember the people you are dialoging with are potential allies, whom if convinced can prove invaluable at convincing others they once held similar views with.
QuoteGenesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.
Does it mean that God is just an allegory?
Quote from: "DigitalBot"QuoteGenesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.
Does it mean that God is just an allegory?
Look to pagan gods, and then look at the Biblical God as a kind of archetypal Man, and I think you're probably pretty close, actually.
I would still interject that for a thousand years, the vast vast majority of christians did indeed believe the babble to be literal truth. Its not called the dark ages fer nuttin. I get frustrated when I try to point out that the great philosophers lived 350-400 years before the idiocy of the new testament and all that crap, but believers never get the concept that religion dumbed down the populace to pre-historic cavemen.
It always reminds me of this chart:
(//http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif)
Quote from: "stromboli"http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis
QuoteGiven the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.
QuoteIntroduction
Many people assume that Darwin's theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin's theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen's views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4
I've said on here a few times that Genesis was Allegorical. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal Genesis is absurd on its face. The forbidden fruit is about the fallen state of man, not a literal sin committed by Eve. Silly Christians should do their homework.
Please note that when I say "agrees with Darwin" in the title doesn't mean I specifically believe that, its just the title of the article.
Aquinus didn't know shit. That would be like the Egyptians pointing at the sun and saying "that is the sun", yea, doesn't mean they knew what the fuck they were looking at.
Muslims have tried this bullshit tactic too. "This Koran vs says" so therefore Allah picks the sex of the baby. "This Koran vs says the skies turn red" so since scientists have pictures of a red nebula.
IT IS THE SAME SHIT
And this "fallen state" vs "sin" is just more bullshit goal post moving in retrospect when they know they are pulling this crap out of a fucking comic book.
The bible is not a science textbook and this "potential for life" is also again, retrofiting after the fact, to try to remain relevant. The bible is a fucking comic book and complete myth. It never was and never will be a science textbook.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge. We speak of people who were far more advanced in science, architecture, engineering, medicine, philosophy, metallurgy, navigation, mathematics et cetera ad nauseam than people were during the medieval ages a thousand years later. All thanks to the quashing of science and the scientific principles conducted by the Church.
This is nonsense. The stories in the OT Bible were told by nomadic goat-herders, embellished and passed down over centuries before finally being written down. Claiming that Hebrew tribes were more scientifically advanced than medieval Europeans is simply wrong. Both groups were equally ignorant and superstitious.
QuoteGenesis was written by people who thought what was written was factual.
On what do you base this bald assertion?
QuoteAnd Darwin never set out to challenge the Creation Myth, nor does his work form the only argument for evolution. He is simply an easy target for those who have nothing to challenge the Evolution Theory other than their faith in their scriptures. Scripture, mind you, that are easily disproved.
And that is ignoring the little fact that Darwin proposed a hypothesis concerning Evolution, and not Abiogensis, a different scientific discipline.
The problem that Christians have with Darwin remains the same regardless of the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. If Homo Sapiens and apes evolved from a common ancestor, then humans are no longer "special." We're not God's Favorite, we're just another animal - which means that Biblical concepts such as "having dominion over the animals" are meaningless.
Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.
The writers of the gospels seemed to think they were literal because of the genealogies at the beginnings of Matthew and Luke.
When I was a Christian I used to argue that Genesis taught evolution...
QuoteThe earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind... And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so...
Pretty thin and quite a long reach, but it could vaguely be done.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"The 6,000 year old earth thing is taken from counting the unbroken lineage from Adam to Abraham as found in the bible, not from Genesis
This one (//http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201%3A1-17&version=ESV)? Or this one (//http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23-38;&version=ESV)? :-k
Either way, I think we can safely say that the methodology of dating the Earth by way of tales where people lived to be hundreds of years old is slightly suspect.
Some of you of perpetrating some well-known myths here:
Quote from: "Plu"It always reminds me of this chart:
[ Image (//http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif) ]
This is very misleading. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Golden Age occurred during this time span, during which there were VERY significant developments in Mathematics, Astronomy and [especially] Medicine. It is entirely because of some great thinkers in the Middle East (Baghdad) that we even have translations of ancient Greek thinkers (namely Aristotle) at all. And the term "Dark Ages" is of French origin and is very much too leading.
Quote from: "Davka"Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.
This is one of THE biggest myths regarding Science and Religion. Anti-Heliocentricity was not about placing humans at the center of the Universe in an exhalted way. As you may know, Aristotle taught that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Aristotle also taught that heavenly bodies were made of a 5th, lighter element he called "aether". Hence Earth, being at the center, was because it had all of the heavy elements. The religious took this to infer the uncleanliness of the Earth. Also, some of the earliest, biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution were clergymen. Some of their support came from the reasoning that a Creator who could make living being who could develop into greater/more complex living being was a greater Creator than one who simply made species-static creatures.
I recommend reading a book called "Galileo Goes to Jail". Goes over and corrects many myths regarding the relationship between Science and Religion, from Darwin's suppose conversion to Christianity on his deathbed, to the Galileo business. Fun read. :)
QuoteThis is very misleading. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Golden Age occurred during this time span, during which there were VERY significant developments in Mathematics, Astronomy and [especially] Medicine. It is entirely because of some great thinkers in the Middle East (Baghdad) that we even have translations of ancient Greek thinkers (namely Aristotle) at all. And the term "Dark Ages" is of French origin and is very much too leading.
Yeah, I was afraid it wouldn't show a total picture. It might be fairly inaccurate, especially considering the muslim golden age. It should start rising a little before the rennaisance, I guess. And not stay totally flat. It's excaggarated. But the basic concept of a hole in science I guess remains, if you compare what people knew and built and tried in the roman and greek ages.
Why was this thread created? To say that theist try to retrofit science to fit their fiction?
Look, I feel no need to comment other than to say that book was written in a scientifically ignorant age by dumb goat herders, and it has absolutely no basis in any modern scientific reality because that book is not and never will be a science textbook.
It is pointless to even discuss this and plays right into the hands of desperate theists who want the earth to be flat after we know now it is not.
DONT FEED THE FUNDIES
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Davka"Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.
This is one of THE biggest myths regarding Science and Religion. Anti-Heliocentricity was not about placing humans at the center of the Universe in an exhalted way. As you may know, Aristotle taught that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Aristotle also taught that heavenly bodies were made of a 5th, lighter element he called "aether". Hence Earth, being at the center, was because it had all of the heavy elements. The religious took this to infer the uncleanliness of the Earth. Also, some of the earliest, biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution were clergymen. Some of their support came from the reasoning that a Creator who could make living being who could develop into greater/more complex living being was a greater Creator than one who simply made species-static creatures.
I recommend reading a book called "Galileo Goes to Jail". Goes over and corrects many myths regarding the relationship between Science and Religion, from Darwin's suppose conversion to Christianity on his deathbed, to the Galileo business. Fun read. :)
Um - I wrote about Copernicus, not Galileo. And Copernicus' heliocentric Solar System was initially rejected because it went against the idea that the Universe was a series of concentric spheres, fixed in place with Earth as the center. While not explicitly stated, at least one reason this would be upsetting to humans is that by removing Earth from the center of God's Universe, we remove it also from the center of God's attention.
The earliest objections to Copernican Heliocentrism were based on a combination of this "scientific" belief (geocentric spheres) and Biblical interpretation:
Quote from: "Wikipedia"Melanchthon published his Initia Doctrinae Physicae presenting three grounds to reject Copernicanism, these were "the evidence of the senses, the thousand-year consensus of men of science, and the authority of the Bible". Blasting the new theory Melanchthon wrote "Out of love for novelty or in order to make a show of their cleverness, some people have argued that the earth moves. They maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun moves, whereas they attribute motion to the other celestial spheres, and also place the earth among the heavenly bodies. Nor were these jokes invented recently. There is still extant Archimedes' book on The sand-reckoner; in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos propounded the paradox that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around the sun. Even though subtle experts institute many investigations for the sake of exercising their ingenuity, nevertheless public proclamation of absurd opinions is indecent and sets a harmful example." Melanchthon went on to cite Bible passages and then declare "Encouraged by this divine evidence, let us cherish the truth and let us not permit ourselves to be alienated from it by the tricks of those who deem it an intellectual honor to introduce confusion into the arts."
In Roman Catholic circles, German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius was one of the first to write against Copernicus' theory as heretical, citing the Joshua passage, in a work published in 1609–1610, and again in a book in 1612.
In his 12 April 1615 letter to a Catholic defender of Copernicus, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine condemned Copernican theory, writing "...not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world...Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith 'as regards the topic,' it is a matter of faith 'as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles."
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "AxisMundi"The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge. We speak of people who were far more advanced in science, architecture, engineering, medicine, philosophy, metallurgy, navigation, mathematics et cetera ad nauseam than people were during the medieval ages a thousand years later. All thanks to the quashing of science and the scientific principles conducted by the Church.
This is nonsense. The stories in the OT Bible were told by nomadic goat-herders, embellished and passed down over centuries before finally being written down. Claiming that Hebrew tribes were more scientifically advanced than medieval Europeans is simply wrong. Both groups were equally ignorant and superstitious.
QuoteGenesis was written by people who thought what was written was factual.
On what do you base this bald assertion?
QuoteAnd Darwin never set out to challenge the Creation Myth, nor does his work form the only argument for evolution. He is simply an easy target for those who have nothing to challenge the Evolution Theory other than their faith in their scriptures. Scripture, mind you, that are easily disproved.
And that is ignoring the little fact that Darwin proposed a hypothesis concerning Evolution, and not Abiogensis, a different scientific discipline.
The problem that Christians have with Darwin remains the same regardless of the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. If Homo Sapiens and apes evolved from a common ancestor, then humans are no longer "special." We're not God's Favorite, we're just another animal - which means that Biblical concepts such as "having dominion over the animals" are meaningless.
Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.
1. I was speaking of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Plu's graph is a perfect visual aid for you. Try reading before replying.
2. Prove it's a lie.
3. No argument there.
Quote from: "Hydra009".......Either way, I think we can safely say that the methodology of dating the Earth by way of tales where people lived to be hundreds of years old is slightly suspect.
Quite safe, yes. :P
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Davka"Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.
This is one of THE biggest myths regarding Science and Religion. Anti-Heliocentricity was not about placing humans at the center of the Universe in an exhalted way. As you may know, Aristotle taught that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Aristotle also taught that heavenly bodies were made of a 5th, lighter element he called "aether". Hence Earth, being at the center, was because it had all of the heavy elements. The religious took this to infer the uncleanliness of the Earth. Also, some of the earliest, biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution were clergymen. Some of their support came from the reasoning that a Creator who could make living being who could develop into greater/more complex living being was a greater Creator than one who simply made species-static creatures.
I recommend reading a book called "Galileo Goes to Jail". Goes over and corrects many myths regarding the relationship between Science and Religion, from Darwin's suppose conversion to Christianity on his deathbed, to the Galileo business. Fun read. :)
Um - I wrote about Copernicus, not Galileo. And Copernicus' heliocentric Solar System was initially rejected because it went against the idea that the Universe was a series of concentric spheres, fixed in place with Earth as the center. While not explicitly stated, at least one reason this would be upsetting to humans is that by removing Earth from the center of God's Universe, we remove it also from the center of God's attention.
The earliest objections to Copernican Heliocentrism were based on a combination of this "scientific" belief (geocentric spheres) and Biblical interpretation:
Quote from: "Wikipedia"Melanchthon published his Initia Doctrinae Physicae presenting three grounds to reject Copernicanism, these were "the evidence of the senses, the thousand-year consensus of men of science, and the authority of the Bible". Blasting the new theory Melanchthon wrote "Out of love for novelty or in order to make a show of their cleverness, some people have argued that the earth moves. They maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun moves, whereas they attribute motion to the other celestial spheres, and also place the earth among the heavenly bodies. Nor were these jokes invented recently. There is still extant Archimedes' book on The sand-reckoner; in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos propounded the paradox that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around the sun. Even though subtle experts institute many investigations for the sake of exercising their ingenuity, nevertheless public proclamation of absurd opinions is indecent and sets a harmful example." Melanchthon went on to cite Bible passages and then declare "Encouraged by this divine evidence, let us cherish the truth and let us not permit ourselves to be alienated from it by the tricks of those who deem it an intellectual honor to introduce confusion into the arts."
In Roman Catholic circles, German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius was one of the first to write against Copernicus' theory as heretical, citing the Joshua passage, in a work published in 1609–1610, and again in a book in 1612.
In his 12 April 1615 letter to a Catholic defender of Copernicus, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine condemned Copernican theory, writing "...not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world...Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith 'as regards the topic,' it is a matter of faith 'as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles."
I'm afraid I don't see where your quote disagrees with me. The main objection to Copernican's Heliocentricity was not that it removed HUMANS from the center of the exhaled universe, since the center was considered unclean and gross. AND it was backed by Aristotlean reasoning on weight.
Oh and your reading too much into the title of the book. It goes over (as I said) 25 myths regarding the relationship/history of Science and Religion.... which is in fact the subtitle I believe.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"This is very misleading. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Golden Age occurred during this time span, during which there were VERY significant developments in Mathematics, Astronomy and [especially] Medicine. It is entirely because of some great thinkers in the Middle East (Baghdad) that we even have translations of ancient Greek thinkers (namely Aristotle) at all. And the term "Dark Ages" is of French origin and is very much too leading.
I agree it can be misleading, but more or less accurate within the confines of Europe. However, one cannot argue that the Church did not stamp on the sciences pretty heavily, including medicine, thus causing science to take a few steps backwards in that part of the world. The Arab Golden Age occurred, IMHO, because they were divorced from the Church, and thus were allowed to build on what had come before.
QuoteThe Arab Golden Age occurred, IMHO, because they were divorced from the Church, and thus were allowed to build on what had come before.
And it died when someone stood up and said "hey, lets stick to this book instead".
Quote from: "AxisMundi"1. I was speaking of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Plu's graph is a perfect visual aid for you. Try reading before replying.
The thread title is " Early
Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin."
You wrote "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years
during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting . . ."
The part of the Bible under discussion, the Book of Genesis, was likely created circa 1500/2,000 BCE, and committed to writing around ~1,000 BCE. If you look at Plu's chart (which you might consider as a visual aid), you will see that the Book of Genesis pre-dates both the ancient Roman and Greek empires by a significant chunk of time.
You might consider taking your own advice re: reading/replying.
Quote2. Prove it's a lie.
Sorry, bucko, that's not how the Burden of Proof works. You made the assertion, it's up to you to either back it up or retract it.
"Prove it's a lie" is the dodge that dishonest creationists use to try to pass off their bullshit as irrefutable truth. It's hardly the company I'd like to be counted in. YMMV.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I'm afraid I don't see where your quote disagrees with me. The main objection to Copernican's Heliocentricity was not that it removed HUMANS from the center of the exhaled universe, since the center was considered unclean and gross. AND it was backed by Aristotlean reasoning on weight.
The removal of humans from their exalted place at the center of God's creation is never implicitly stated, but it's present in every anti-science complaint from Theists. People can't come from monkey cuz Gawd done created us special, to have
dominion over aminals! The earth is gross and sinful, but it's also the center of Gawd's attention, and the purpose for which he created everything else. Therefore it must be the center of the Universe, and anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight.
All theism is inherently egocentric human posturing. We're not insignificant animals in a vast uncaring cosmos, we're the most important thing in Gawd's Creation! Theologians merely dress up this egotistical viewpoint with lots of pious-sounding humility and self-flagellation, because it would sound way too blatantly prideful to come right out and state what they really think: Gawd's Chosen are second only to Gawd, and the rest of you sinners will
BURN, as you well deserve.
Quote from: "Brian37"Why was this thread created? To say that theist try to retrofit science to fit their fiction?
Look, I feel no need to comment other than to say that book was written in a scientifically ignorant age by dumb goat herders, and it has absolutely no basis in any modern scientific reality because that book is not and never will be a science textbook.
It is pointless to even discuss this and plays right into the hands of desperate theists who want the earth to be flat after we know now it is not.
DONT FEED THE FUNDIES
Actually, the history of Biblical interpretation can be very useful in countering fundy nonsense. Most people (and almost all fundys) are unaware that Biblical Literalism is a very recent invention, adopted primarily as a reaction against the Enlightenment. For most of the history of Christianity and Judaism, a literal reading of scripture would have been considered very, very odd, if not heretical. Fundy need to know that they are clinging to a recent invention of men, not the WordO'Gawd[sup:2hg1p58u]TM[/sup:2hg1p58u].
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteThe Arab Golden Age occurred, IMHO, because they were divorced from the Church, and thus were allowed to build on what had come before.
And it died when someone stood up and said "hey, lets stick to this book instead".
Yup.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "AxisMundi"1. I was speaking of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Plu's graph is a perfect visual aid for you. Try reading before replying.
The thread title is " Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin."
You wrote "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting . . ."
The part of the Bible under discussion, the Book of Genesis, was likely created circa 1500/2,000 BCE, and committed to writing around ~1,000 BCE. If you look at Plu's chart (which you might consider as a visual aid), you will see that the Book of Genesis pre-dates both the ancient Roman and Greek empires by a significant chunk of time.
You might consider taking your own advice re: reading/replying.
Quote2. Prove it's a lie.
Sorry, bucko, that's not how the Burden of Proof works. You made the assertion, it's up to you to either back it up or retract it.
"Prove it's a lie" is the dodge that dishonest creationists use to try to pass off their bullshit as irrefutable truth. It's hardly the company I'd like to be counted in. YMMV.
1. And? Your point? You did not reply to what I posted. Just stand corrected and lets move on.
2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.
3. So in other words, you cannot prove your point and isntead must try to insult me be attempting to group me in with the Creationist crowd.
Quote from: "Davka"The removal of humans from their exalted place at the center of God's creation is never implicitly stated, but it's present in every anti-science complaint from Theists.
But theists today =/= those in Copernican's time in every respect. From the academic reljubs of the time, it was primarily the incompatibility of Heliocentric Theory with Aristotlean reasoning, Church dogma based on it and common sense that drew it under heavy fire.
QuotePeople can't come from monkey cuz Gawd done created us special, to have dominion over aminals! The earth is gross and sinful, but it's also the center of Gawd's attention, and the purpose for which he created everything else. Therefore it must be the center of the Universe, and anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight.
Well actually, some of Darwin's earliest supporters and defenders were clergymen too, but that wasn't very widespread reception.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.
The origin Torah is not the same thing as the origins of the texts that became the Torah. The texts (based and plagarised mainly on Babylonian myths and such) long predated the Torah and Judaism.
Oh and who was the one who said that humans in Biblical times couldn't "comprehend billions of years" (not that anyone can actually comprehend that kind of time intuitively)? If so, bullshit. First off, the Hindu Vedic texts clearly state their belief that the universe is more than 4 BILLION years old. If someone did say that, I really have no clue what they're talking about....
Quote from: "AxisMundi"1. And? Your point? You did not reply to what I posted. Just stand corrected and lets move on.
You really have a difficult time with basic logic, don't you?
You claimed that the people who wrote the Bible - specifically, the Book of Genesis - were capable of comprehending fairly complex scientific principles. I corrected your total bullshit, pointing out that the people who wrote Genesis were nomadic shepherds. You stupidly responded by claiming that you were talking about the Greeks and Romans. Aside from the fact that the Greeks and Romans had nothing to do with the writing of the Hebrew Old Testament, I pointed out that those people
did not yet exist at the time that the Genesis creation myth was formulated.
Therefore, your claim that "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" is, as I said, total nonsense. Your attempt to bolster this unsupportable position by pretending that you were talking about Rome or Greece is not only demonstrably nonsense, but 'shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" as well.
I don't know which is funnier - the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or the fact that you're trying so desperately to weasel out of it. You would have done better to simply say "oh, my mistake" instead of telling me to read before posting. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
Quote2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.
Genesis (and indeed most of the OT) existed in oral form for centuries before it was written down. The people who originally told the Genesis creation story lived a long, long time before it was ever written down. The stories pre-date the "writing" by at least 1,000 years. Try to keep up, will you?
Quote3. So in other words, you cannot prove your point and isntead must try to insult me be attempting to group me in with the Creationist crowd.
No, the creationist line was in regard to a separate issue: your moronic attempt to shift the Burden of Proof (//http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Burden+of+Proof) by making an unsupported claim and then, when challenged to support your claim, stupidly saying "prove it's not true."
This idiocy on your part has nothing to do with your previous historically inaccurate idiocy, which I shredded above for your viewing pleasure.
Nice try, no cookie.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Davka"The removal of humans from their exalted place at the center of God's creation is never implicitly stated, but it's present in every anti-science complaint from Theists.
But theists today =/= those in Copernican's time in every respect. From the academic reljubs of the time, it was primarily the incompatibility of Heliocentric Theory with Aristotlean reasoning, Church dogma based on it and common sense that drew it under heavy fire.
OK, put me down as having learned something. I still suspect that the anthropocentric nature of humans (yeah, I know that's dangerously close to a tautology) had a lot to do with it, but I was not aware that Aristotlean thought was so influential on the European theology of the 16th century. Thank you for that.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Oh and who was the one who said that humans in Biblical times couldn't "comprehend billions of years" (not that anyone can actually comprehend that kind of time intuitively)? If so, bullshit. First off, the Hindu Vedic texts clearly state their belief that the universe is more than 4 BILLION years old. If someone did say that, I really have no clue what they're talking about....
I don't think it was actually said by anyone. I took it to mean that the Bible 'writers' themselves were capable of comprehending billions of years, which seems highly unlikely. They were fairly primitive bronze-age tribal nomads, with some pretty simplistic ideas, if Genesis is any guide.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Davka"The removal of humans from their exalted place at the center of God's creation is never implicitly stated, but it's present in every anti-science complaint from Theists.
But theists today =/= those in Copernican's time in every respect. From the academic reljubs of the time, it was primarily the incompatibility of Heliocentric Theory with Aristotlean reasoning, Church dogma based on it and common sense that drew it under heavy fire.
OK, put me down as having learned something. I still suspect that the anthropocentric nature of humans (yeah, I know that's dangerously close to a tautology) had a lot to do with it, but I was not aware that Aristotlean thought was so influential on the European theology of the 16th century. Thank you for that.
No problem. Part of the reason for the confusion (I only recently found this out, like 2 days ago) is becasue some later writers, philosophers and scientists have said that was the reason, including the likes of Freud. While for all I know non-academics opposed it for that reason, as far as the texts I've been reading point to those being the reason that the learned opposed it initially. :-)
QuoteI don't think it was actually said by anyone. I took it to mean that the Bible 'writers' themselves were capable of comprehending billions of years, which seems highly unlikely. They were fairly primitive bronze-age tribal nomads, with some pretty simplistic ideas, if Genesis is any guide.
Oh, okay, I misunderstood I guess, since I somehow took it to mean (in part of my post) that they couldn't even produce the concept. Though, as I said, I don't think anyone can really comprehend it in any intuitive way.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"The origin Torah is not the same thing as the origins of the texts that became the Torah. The texts (based and plagarised mainly on Babylonian myths and such) long predated the Torah and Judaism.
Oh and who was the one who said that humans in Biblical times couldn't "comprehend billions of years" (not that anyone can actually comprehend that kind of time intuitively)? If so, bullshit. First off, the Hindu Vedic texts clearly state their belief that the universe is more than 4 BILLION years old. If someone did say that, I really have no clue what they're talking about....
Yes, I am aware that the myths in the Torah are based on ones much older. However, the other poster and I were speaking specifically of the Torah.
And it is a common "argument" from Creationists that "people just couldn't understand things" back then, so everything in the bible is written in allegory. Utter balderdash, of course.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "AxisMundi"1. And? Your point? You did not reply to what I posted. Just stand corrected and lets move on.
You really have a difficult time with basic logic, don't you?
You claimed that the people who wrote the Bible - specifically, the Book of Genesis - were capable of comprehending fairly complex scientific principles. I corrected your total bullshit, pointing out that the people who wrote Genesis were nomadic shepherds. You stupidly responded by claiming that you were talking about the Greeks and Romans. Aside from the fact that the Greeks and Romans had nothing to do with the writing of the Hebrew Old Testament, I pointed out that those people did not yet exist at the time that the Genesis creation myth was formulated.
Therefore, your claim that "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" is, as I said, total nonsense. Your attempt to bolster this unsupportable position by pretending that you were talking about Rome or Greece is not only demonstrably nonsense, but 'shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" as well.
I don't know which is funnier - the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or the fact that you're trying so desperately to weasel out of it. You would have done better to simply say "oh, my mistake" instead of telling me to read before posting. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
Quote2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.
Genesis (and indeed most of the OT) existed in oral form for centuries before it was written down. The people who originally told the Genesis creation story lived a long, long time before it was ever written down. The stories pre-date the "writing" by at least 1,000 years. Try to keep up, will you?
Quote3. So in other words, you cannot prove your point and isntead must try to insult me be attempting to group me in with the Creationist crowd.
No, the creationist line was in regard to a separate issue: your moronic attempt to shift the Burden of Proof (//http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Burden+of+Proof) by making an unsupported claim and then, when challenged to support your claim, stupidly saying "prove it's not true."
This idiocy on your part has nothing to do with your previous historically inaccurate idiocy, which I shredded above for your viewing pleasure.
Nice try, no cookie.
1. You obviously have reading comprehension troubles. Go back and reread the thread.
2. Centuries, not millenia.
3. K then, let's be more specific, sicne you appear to be incapable of understanding simple concept. Prove that the ancient Hebrews did not believe the earth was flat, that everything was not created by a demiurge, that there is not enough water on the planet to completely inundate everything right up tot he tallest mountain, etc, etc, etc.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "AxisMundi"1. And? Your point? You did not reply to what I posted. Just stand corrected and lets move on.
You really have a difficult time with basic logic, don't you?
You claimed that the people who wrote the Bible - specifically, the Book of Genesis - were capable of comprehending fairly complex scientific principles. I corrected your total bullshit, pointing out that the people who wrote Genesis were nomadic shepherds. You stupidly responded by claiming that you were talking about the Greeks and Romans. Aside from the fact that the Greeks and Romans had nothing to do with the writing of the Hebrew Old Testament, I pointed out that those people did not yet exist at the time that the Genesis creation myth was formulated.
Therefore, your claim that "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" is, as I said, total nonsense. Your attempt to bolster this unsupportable position by pretending that you were talking about Rome or Greece is not only demonstrably nonsense, but 'shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" as well.
I don't know which is funnier - the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or the fact that you're trying so desperately to weasel out of it. You would have done better to simply say "oh, my mistake" instead of telling me to read before posting. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.
Quote2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.
Genesis (and indeed most of the OT) existed in oral form for centuries before it was written down. The people who originally told the Genesis creation story lived a long, long time before it was ever written down. The stories pre-date the "writing" by at least 1,000 years. Try to keep up, will you?
Quote3. So in other words, you cannot prove your point and isntead must try to insult me be attempting to group me in with the Creationist crowd.
No, the creationist line was in regard to a separate issue: your moronic attempt to shift the Burden of Proof (//http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Burden+of+Proof) by making an unsupported claim and then, when challenged to support your claim, stupidly saying "prove it's not true."
This idiocy on your part has nothing to do with your previous historically inaccurate idiocy, which I shredded above for your viewing pleasure.
Nice try, no cookie.
1. You obviously have reading comprehension troubles. Go back and reread the thread.
2. Centuries, not millenia.
3. K then, let's be more specific, sicne you appear to be incapable of understanding simple concept. Prove that the ancient Hebrews did not believe the earth was flat, that everything was not created by a demiurge, that there is not enough water on the planet to completely inundate everything right up tot he tallest mountain, etc, etc, etc.
Prove that I'm wrong. Prove that you're not a 12-year-old playing on your daddy's computer. Prove that there's no invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Prove that you have the tiniest shred of comprehension of what is meant by "burden of proof."
The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
Eh, String Theory (not actually a theory, which is why I hate the name...) seems to me just an Ivory tower in physicts. It has produced basically ZERO empirical data in, what, 40 years?
And ST doesn't solve the cosmogony problem. I don't think the question of existence is really solvable by science, or even philosophy. But then again, not all philosphers. see the something-nothing question as a problem. Adolf Grunbaum is pretty good at arguing against it, and showing that it's really rather a mistaken view (in his opinion) we've inherited from early Christian theological claims.
Quote from: "Davka"Prove that I'm wrong. Prove that you're not a 12-year-old playing on your daddy's computer. Prove that there's no invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Prove that you have the tiniest shred of comprehension of what is meant by "burden of proof."
Well, I guess that's your way of admitting you stand corrected.
Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
The String "Theory" (hypothesis more like) is an interesting exercise, certainly, but I prefer the "Big Crunch Theory".
That the universe simply is, always has been, and always will be. That the "Big Bang" is merely a cycle of renewal, a "universal winter" if you will.
I do not think the Bible conforms with evolution. It really does not. Otherwise let's take the whole thing metaphorically. What is the point of saying "oh that's just a metaphor"? How do you decide? Why can't we say the whole thing is a metaphor , what makes that any more or less credible? Does a metaphor have to always defy the laws of science? So what about the virgin birth?
On a different note,
I also despise calling humans 'simply animals' 'born to try winning mates and surviving'.
We do have an animalistic nature, but also a human one.
We look after the disabled, when it would be a survival disadvantage to do so.
We give to the poor, we have poetry, music, the internet.
We colonise the entire world and soon our neighbouring planets.
We are exceedingly more intelligent than any other creature on earth.
I have not even touched the surface, but please, if you call yourself just an 'animal', you're not for all of us.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
The String "Theory" (hypothesis more like) is an interesting exercise, certainly, but I prefer the "Big Crunch Theory".
That the universe simply is, always has been, and always will be. That the "Big Bang" is merely a cycle of renewal, a "universal winter" if you will.
Both are flawed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... ludes.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7955379/The-universe-will-expand-forever-new-Nasa-study-on-dark-energy-concludes.html)
The universe 'will expand forever', new Nasa study on 'dark energy' concludes
The universe will continue to expand forever, Nasa scientists concluded in a new study that sheds light on one of the greatest astronomical puzzles, "dark energy".
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
The String "Theory" (hypothesis more like) is an interesting exercise, certainly, but I prefer the "Big Crunch Theory".
That the universe simply is, always has been, and always will be. That the "Big Bang" is merely a cycle of renewal, a "universal winter" if you will.
Both are flawed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... ludes.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7955379/The-universe-will-expand-forever-new-Nasa-study-on-dark-energy-concludes.html)
The universe 'will expand forever', new Nasa study on 'dark energy' concludes
The universe will continue to expand forever, Nasa scientists concluded in a new study that sheds light on one of the greatest astronomical puzzles, "dark energy".
Didn't claim either were facts.
As long as we are stuck here on our wee planet, our exploration of the universe, including its origins, are limited as well.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"We do have an animalistic nature, but also a human one.
We look after the disabled
So do many other species.
Quote, when it would be a survival disadvantage to do so.
It's usually genetically
advantageous.
QuoteWe give to the poor
Many species help the less fortunate of their species.
QuoteWe colonise the entire world
Bacteria do a lot better at that than animals do.
QuoteWe are exceedingly more intelligent than any other creature on earth.
For humans. If we had to live like almost any other species, we'd be among the most stupid of creatures living that way.
It's like the argument about whether cats or dogs are "smarter". A dog makes a pretty stupid cat.
QuoteI have not even touched the surface
You haven't touched anything. Other than mere technological superiority in many areas, you haven't given us anything. And without our technology we're about the most useless species on the planet.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "Davka"Prove that I'm wrong. Prove that you're not a 12-year-old playing on your daddy's computer. Prove that there's no invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Prove that you have the tiniest shred of comprehension of what is meant by "burden of proof."
Well, I guess that's your way of admitting you stand corrected.
No, that's my way of bitch-slapping you for being a clueless fucking moron.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I do not think the Bible conforms with evolution. It really does not. Otherwise let's take the whole thing metaphorically. What is the point of saying "oh that's just a metaphor"? How do you decide? Why can't we say the whole thing is a metaphor , what makes that any more or less credible? Does a metaphor have to always defy the laws of science? So what about the virgin birth?
On a different note,
I also despise calling humans 'simply animals' 'born to try winning mates and surviving'.
We do have an animalistic nature, but also a human one.
Human nature IS our animal nature.
QuoteWe look after the disabled, when it would be a survival disadvantage to do so.
So do other species.
QuoteWe give to the poor,
So do other species.
Quotewe have poetry,
So do other species, depending on how you define "poetry."
Quotemusic,
So do other species.
Quotethe internet.
Oh, look, technology that it more advanced than any tools used by other species. How special.
Not.
QuoteWe colonise the entire world
So do other species. In fact, the bulk of the world's biomass is made up of microscopic critters in the soil. We're not so special.
Quoteand soon our neighbouring planets.
Human tool best tool! Og say so!
QuoteWe are exceedingly more intelligent than any other creature on earth.
"exceedingly"? Not really. Chimps are about as inteligent as a 2-year-old human.
QuoteI have not even touched the surface, but please, if you call yourself just an 'animal', you're not for all of us.
Actually, all you've done is brushed the surface, with a whole lot of incorrect assumptions about human nature. Watch this video:
What separates us from chimpanzees (//http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_goodall_on_what_separates_us_from_the_apes.html)
Then come back and tell us how unique humans are, and how we're not really animals.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "Davka"Prove that I'm wrong. Prove that you're not a 12-year-old playing on your daddy's computer. Prove that there's no invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Prove that you have the tiniest shred of comprehension of what is meant by "burden of proof."
Well, I guess that's your way of admitting you stand corrected.
No, that's my way of bitch-slapping you for being a clueless fucking moron.
I won the debate, yay for me. :rollin:
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"I do not think the Bible conforms with evolution. It really does not. Otherwise let's take the whole thing metaphorically. What is the point of saying "oh that's just a metaphor"? How do you decide? Why can't we say the whole thing is a metaphor , what makes that any more or less credible? Does a metaphor have to always defy the laws of science? So what about the virgin birth?
On a different note,
I also despise calling humans 'simply animals' 'born to try winning mates and surviving'.
We do have an animalistic nature, but also a human one.
We are animals. Specifically, apes. You can look our species up on a taxonomic chart.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"We look after the disabled, when it would be a survival disadvantage to do so.
We give to the poor
Animals do that. It's not a special homo sapien trait.
Quote from: "mendacium remedium"We are exceedingly more intelligent than any other creature on earth.
Some of us are. My dogs would probably disagree though.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
The String "Theory" (hypothesis more like) is an interesting exercise, certainly, but I prefer the "Big Crunch Theory".
That the universe simply is, always has been, and always will be. That the "Big Bang" is merely a cycle of renewal, a "universal winter" if you will.
It is an interesting theory, but from the standpoint of modern physics, it is generally believed that the universe will eventually 'freeze' as all the stars die out and all that will be left will be black holes, desolate planets and the remnants of civilizations. (not sure how that fits in to 'gods plan..)
Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "VaasMontenegro"The only argument that religious people can use that actually stands as a sensible argument is the 'God is necessary' argument, but I'm afraid that that argument now no longer stands, thanks to String Theory. Yes, it may be a theory, but it is widely accepted by physicists as a viable explanation as to the true origins of the universe, and thanks to work by these Physicists, we can now say that God is not necessary, citing the fact that string theory is supported by evidence and reliable data that shows the true origins of the universe. I'm not an expert on String Theory, so if you think I'm just making this up, you should it up and watch some videos by Michio Kaku explaining why this is the case.
The String "Theory" (hypothesis more like) is an interesting exercise, certainly, but I prefer the "Big Crunch Theory".
That the universe simply is, always has been, and always will be. That the "Big Bang" is merely a cycle of renewal, a "universal winter" if you will.
It is an interesting theory, but from the standpoint of modern physics, it is generally believed that the universe will eventually 'freeze' as all the stars die out and all that will be left will be black holes, desolate planets and the remnants of civilizations. (not sure how that fits in to 'gods plan..)
There is some evidence that the universe has a super-massive black hole at the center of all mass, much like our galaxy has one at its center.
One could surmise that the outward expansion of all mass/energy in the universe will at one point fade, and the gravity from said universal black hole will draw all matter/energy back into itself, thus reaching critical mass and exploding once again.