Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin

[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.

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.

[GurrenLagann]

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. :-)

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.

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.

[AxisMundi]

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.

[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.

2. 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?

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.

No, the creationist line was in regard to a separate issue: your moronic attempt to shift the 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.

[Davka]

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.

2. 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?

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.

No, the creationist line was in regard to a separate issue: your moronic attempt to shift the 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."

[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.

[GurrenLagann]

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.

[AxisMundi]

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.

[AxisMundi]

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.

[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 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.

[mendacium remedium]

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

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".

[AxisMundi]

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

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.

[Colanth]

We do have an animalistic nature, but also a human one.

We look after the disabled

So do many other species.

, when it would be a survival disadvantage to do so.

It's usually genetically advantageous.

We give to the poor

Many species help the less fortunate of their species.

We colonise the entire world

Bacteria do a lot better at that than animals do.

We 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.

I 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.

[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.

[Davka]

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.

We look after the disabled, when it would be a survival disadvantage to do so.

So do other species.

We give to the poor,

So do other species.

we have poetry,

So do other species, depending on how you define "poetry."

 

music,

So do other species.

the internet.

Oh, look, technology that it more advanced than any tools used by other species. How special.

Not.

We 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.

 

and soon our neighbouring planets.

Human tool best tool! Og say so!

We are exceedingly more intelligent than any other creature on earth.

"exceedingly"? Not really. Chimps are about as inteligent as a 2-year-old human.

I 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

Then come back and tell us how unique humans are, and how we're not really animals.