Jump to content

I guess I was wrong...


chelle

Recommended Posts

Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

 

it is difficult to prove a negative. it is also difficult to have a discussion with someone whose "pro" argument reverts to "because the bible says so"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

One can define something by stating what one is. Alternatively, one can define something by stating what a thing is not. By the evidence (what we currently know given the Genesis account), the creation story would have to fall more correctly under the definition of myth rather than science.

 

I think people get carried away with the ideas of Karl Popper (that things cannot be proven to eliminate all uncertainty but the obverse holds that, something once disproved can thus be eliminated). I'd guess we'd have to say that all hypotheses are equally valid but a much higher standard would have to be taken to elevate a hypothesis to a working theory. Common sense also dictates that the idea of holding all hypotheses (accepting all things as true) is not efficient, you'd spend an eternity trying to figure what's right and what works.

 

Besides, evolution is more of a discipline rather than a single theory to be disproved. So, it's a discipline with subdisciplines such as evolutionary psychology that can generate hypotheses to be tested and validated as theories based on the foundation that life evolves through unconscious goal (evolution as random, not directed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

 

it is difficult to prove a negative. it is also difficult to have a discussion with someone whose "pro" argument reverts to "because the bible says so"

 

Pipe down, nobody was talking to you. the_finger.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that my complaint regarding the replacement of the word 'evolution' with 'change though time' is that it dilutes the impact of the idea that change progresses naturally without a conscious agent directing it, much as water flows down a canyon under gravity and depending on the vagaries of such things as the strength of the stone to erosion, etc. Given long periods of time (and this is very limited as a metaphor since this deals with inorganic substances rather than organic life) one can see fantastic shapes produced.

 

Do we need to know about evolution in order to function in life, to have life skills? No. Just like I don't need to know physics or chemistry to take advantage of having my car repaired or have my leg fixed. I do believe, however, is that it puts us on a lower level of being, as mere technologists, who leave it to others to dictate why things are as they are. So, basically it puts us back in time to the days when priests told us the important things, effectively relinquishing power back to the elite. Interestingly, it is similiar to what would happen if we gave the interpretation of Christianity back to the priests. The issue revolves around the idea of power, authority, and our standing in the world as (seemingly) free agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?

 

Jesus, get some frickin' perspective! Those who choose to base their beliefs on a moldy old book that's been translated and transcribed hundreds (or even thousands) of times need to look at the hard evidence of what that process involves. Translation, by its very nature, introduces the biases of those doing the translation. A classic example of this, ironically, deals with the very topic of Christianity and Evolution (as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point).

 

From this web page:

Speaking in French, the Pope addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 23, 1996 in which he addressed the subject of evolution.

 

English translations of one key sentence include:

 

"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."

 

and

 

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."

 

My point is this: It's very easy for 2 people to translate a sentence from one language to another and come up with sentences that mean the exact opposite of the other. Imagine how many times this must have happened while the Bible was being translated from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek to Latin to the vernacular languages by 'scholars' who weren't necessarily native speakers of the languages the 'scriptures' were originally written in. In addition, the oldest versions of the scriptures available are copies that have been transcribed numerous generations from the originals (read numerous opportunities for introduction of error or addition of any particular scribe's personal views into the texts.)

 

On another note, the order of the creation of the species does not match the fossil record. If memory serves me correctly, man came at the end of the creation account, the ultimate earthly creation of God. The fossil record clearly shows man branching off the evolutionary bush before hoofed animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point...

 

Discuss, please.

 

Do you say this because of Christianity's early spread under the (pagan) Roman Empire? Or do you have another basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm . . .Where to start? In doing science, hypothesis must be testable, usually for wrongness. In the creation stories there is no test for rightness or wrongness, ergo, it is not science. The creation stories were written as an attempt to tell / explain the beginning of the world to uneducated people, and if you think about it, many have a respectable order to how the scientific data shows things happened. To me, what makes this is amazing, is these were written by people who had no scientific training.

Creation is not a theory. A theory is, by definition, a synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well tested and verified hypothesis about certain aspects of the natural world. Hence, theory of evolution, big bang theory, atomic theory. Evidence to support it. Again, creationism can't be tested and what is the large body of information concerning it?

Evolution on the other hand is not a fact, nor is creation. Fact by definition is agreement by competent observers of the same phenomena. For evolution, no actual observation, but there is supporting evidence.

As I said in an earlier post, belief in a supreme being (being created) and and the scientific data of evolution and our origins are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Edited by Dan_Harris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it is interesting that HRoark has chosen his choicest insults for CBS, who has been the most respectful of those with religious inclinations.

 

"I just think it is interesting" that you are referring to yourself in the third person suddenly, like it makes you seem all objective and shit. hahaha.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point...

 

Discuss, please.

 

Do you say this because of Christianity's early spread under the (pagan) Roman Empire? Or do you have another basis?

 

The debate, as I see it, primarily involves pagan elements in many mainstream "Christian" religions, many of which can be traced to the Roman Empire's practice of melding pagan religions with 'Christianity' to make it more palatable to the subjugated peoples.

 

Today we see the remnants of that in such things as the Easter Bunny and other pagan fertility rites, kissing under mistletoe, Christmas being placed at or near the winter solstice (the annual rebirth of the Son and the Sun), and numerous others.

 

The Puritans attempted to remove all pagan trappings from their version of Christianity. Some fundamentalist religions today carry on that tradition and have no qualms about saying that most mainstream organized 'Christian' religions fall far short of the mark of true Christianity.

 

I find the debate....engaging, at times. I look for seeming contradictions in our common story of Christianity (I say 'our' because most of us were raised with at least some Christian indoctrination, whether we realize it or not.)

 

For example...since Minx brought up Hell earlier in this thread....in the story of Christianity, the devil punishes evildoers in a fiery hell for all eternity. But wait, that implies that the devil and God are in alliance, working for a common purpose. Would the God of the bible ally himself with an entity that he once kicked out of heaven and condemed to spend all eternity in the vicinity of the Earth? Would the devil REALLY punish evildoers...or would he reward them? If God wanted the evildoers punished, the devil might just attempt to contradict God's wishes.

 

Of course, this line of reasoning can be debated (and most likely refuted) by knowledgeable scholars, but compare this scenario to what you learned as a child (and was probably reinforced as an adult if you attend most any 'Christian' church.) I think many people believe these things without ever taking the time to question why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if you could mabe have some respect for other cultures. Would that be possible? Just a thought. You left-of-centerds are all concerned about other minority cultures. Why are you not concerned about this one? It is clearly a minority, so how about some respect? Thanks! wave.gif

 

Scott, could you provide a little context for your comments so we can figure out what you're trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...as long as one accepts the premise that Catholicism falls under the blanket of Christianity, which, in itself, is a debatable point...

 

Discuss, please.

 

Do you say this because of Christianity's early spread under the (pagan) Roman Empire? Or do you have another basis?

 

The debate, as I see it, primarily involves pagan elements in many mainstream "Christian" religions, many of which can be traced to the Roman Empire's practice of melding pagan religions with 'Christianity' to make it more palatable to the subjugated peoples...

 

As I suspected. We agree, then.

 

Could explain why I quit going to Mass almost 30 years ago, and renounced all major religions as "support mechanisms". Am I an atheist? No. Am I an agnostic? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...