Evolution v Creationism

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest,
'if I did not know what actions were immoral, would I feel guilty?'
'No', said the priest, 'not if you did not know.'
'Then why,' asked the Eskimo, 'did you tell me?'"


...

[LittleGrizzly]

Thanks for that sasaki... so much easier than opening the spoiler....

Can someone define what creationism we are actually comparing evolution to ?

No one seems to be arguing for 6-day creationism, If we are just talking evolution with a creator at the start i don't really see the need for a different name... we don't have gravity and godity, godity being the effects of gravity but put in place by god...

[Tribesman]

so then I show with the first sentence in the Bible you are wrong,

Read your bloody bible , open it on page one and read it , don't give some evangelical text from the late 1st/early 2nd century and call it the first sentance. If you do want to give the evangelical text then perhaps use one of the other greek meanings rather than the one you used .

then you go back to atheist point of view and just say "you took the book from the Jews lulz".

Atheist view
No I said what you claimed was the first sentance of the bible is not , that first sentence would have to be from an old Jewish book that is commonly known in the Christian world as Genesis not the non-synoptic gospel of John .

Some people who make a big del about being "christian" really make me laugh .
While on the other hand ...good post Strike

[Sigurd]

Thanks for that sasaki... so much easier than opening the spoiler....
Can someone define what creationism we are actually comparing evolution to ?

There is creationism and then there is Creationism. I believe we are discussing Creationism which is the fundamentalists with a political agenda and has invented Creation-science. They are pushing it into school boards and courts trying to get their religious views into textbooks and teaching materials, even into science classes.
Their literal interpretation of the Bible is used as basis for their weird ideas, dismissals of scientific discoveries and instead appeal to "magic" as answers.
They should not be confused with creationists which are normal people of faith that do not know how God created the world, but believe He was the cause of all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bleh, embarassing mistake. I've been reading a site on ancient Greek which started with John 1:1 and that got me confused with the God created the Heavens and the earth bit, its a while since I read Genesis, I've only been through the OT fully once.

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

[Tribesman]

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

Srry Rhyf , but you are having real problems getting any of your points to stand at all ...oh and gods laws do change , read your bible

[Askthepizzaguy]

If God's laws don't change, we are SERIOUSLY behind on all those animal and plant offerings and sacrifices.

ATPG, the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately. Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.

Ummm.... That's so DEAD WRONG. It says, explicitly, in the Bible that Eve was the mother of ALL MANKIND. That means everyone in existence (except Adam, supposedly) came from her womb or her children.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...was-cains-wife

In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.

Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to explain Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

All human beings came from this supposed "Eve", according to the Bible itself and your Christian scholars and "scientists".

You continue to espouse your personal, contradictory views as if they are the only accepted explanation of the Bible, often times directly opposing what is actually written in the scripture. You are free to do this, my faithful friend, but you cannot actually say that you're literally following the word of the Bible, and if so, then WHY must you continually harp on what amounts to a couple lines out of thousands and thousands regarding the gays, for example? If the Bible isn't literal and it's open to such wild misinterpretations (interpretations regarded as false by the religious authorities) then who are YOU to be the authority on what the Bible says? If it's open to interpretation, I'm just as much of a Biblical authority as you are, and one of the bonuses in my favor is that I seem to understand what the Bible actually says, no offense.

One cannot truly criticize religion without studying it in great detail. I understand you feel you must defend your faith, but you simply haven't ever done so convincingly. Your interpretations about hell, for example, are quite unique and aren't found in the Bible. Your interpretation on the lineage of mankind is directly refuted by Biblical passages.

Should I get you the white-out? Apparently you want to make numerous changes and call it what the Bible says. That makes you no different from most Christian denominations though, so join the hypocrisy club. Especially when it's written in the Bible that those who alter the word of God are in some pretty deep doo-doo.



Believe what you want; but all your arguments to date indicate that basically, you do believe whatever you want, regardless of what the Bible says. So... why bother quoting it? It's not even an authority in your own mind. It certainly isn't in mine, unless you're discussing what it says, in which case I have the Bible handy and we can debate what it actually says all day long.

It's much like your interpretation of the English language. In prior debates, you would come up with definitions of words entirely the opposite and contradictory from the actual definitions found in a dictionary.

There can be no debate until we agree on what is actually written in the books we use as authoritative references on the subjects we discuss, and in the language we discuss them in. Since you refuse to do so, you've conceded the argument by default.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Read your bloody bible , open it on page one and read it , don't give some evangelical text from the late 1st/early 2nd century and call it the first sentance. If you do want to give the evangelical text then perhaps use one of the other greek meanings rather than the one you used .


Atheist view
No I said what you claimed was the first sentance of the bible is not , that first sentence would have to be from an old Jewish book that is commonly known in the Christian world as Genesis not the non-synoptic gospel of John .

Some people who make a big del about being "christian" really make me laugh .
While on the other hand ...good post Strike

I'm going to have to come down with Tribes on this one, to be honest Rhy.

I'm still waiting for Adrian to demonstrate my extreme hubris, given that I've only written about 200 words.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhy, you scare me in a way.

I mean, anyone can be wrong from time to time, happens to me often enough. No, what scares me is that you have no idea what battle to fight, wich debate is winable. And you have no idea how to win it, or, as it seems, even an interest to learn anything from it.

I have yet to see you change your mind about anything religious even the slightest even after a mountain of proof has swept over you.



What would it take for you to aknowledge that creationism is just utterly wrong? Would god have to come down, smack you on the head saying "Doh!"

Seriosly, given ALL the scientifical research there is on teh subject, what would make you accept you are wrong? Would anything?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think I'm making the Bible contradict itself.

1. Laws such as the sacrifices you are referring to are not anything to do with morality or good or evil etc. They are specific customs given to a certain people on an ethnic basis as part of their culture, and these are changed to mark the various covenants God makes with ethnic Israel. They are nothing to do with morality, as Jesus tells the Pharisees.

2. I don't see what's wrong with my position on hell not being eternal. We debated this before and I gave you all the scriptures quite plainly stating that people in hell will be destroyed completely, it is the flame that is eternal, perhaps for Satan but otherwise people will not be there for ever. The consequences of hell for a person are eternal, but it does not make sense for hell to be eternal, and the scripture doesn't actually say it is.

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it? We are all said to be descended from Adam because he was the first patriarch. Look for example at how non-ethnic Jews incorporated into Israel are treated as descendents of Jacob and promised a place by Abraham's bosom.

[Adrian II]

I'm still waiting for Adrian to demonstrate my extreme hubris, given that I've only written about 200 words.

I owe you an apology.

I confused you with our friend Rhyfelwyr.

I could blame it on my doddering old age, my professional bias or my recurrent fits of cynicism, but there is simply no valid excuse. I am sorry, Philipvs. Of course I still hate your guts in a roundabout, Backroomish sort of way, but I promise I will ne'er confuse you with the gentleman from Scotland again.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh great so what did I do now.

EDIT:

Wait, this is what you said Adrian:

Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.

So when did I say anything about anything there?

[Askthepizzaguy]

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it? We are all said to be descended from Adam because he was the first patriarch. Look for example at how non-ethnic Jews incorporated into Israel are treated as descendents of Jacob and promised a place by Abraham's bosom.

I am not sure that you even read what I wrote.

We can't have a debate if you don't respond to my points. I already answered this question before you asked it.

But, to be honest, there is no reaching you. I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Believe what you want, my friend... but debate is not for you.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am not sure that you even read what I wrote.

We can't have a debate if you don't respond to my points. I already answered this question before you asked it.

But, to be honest, there is no reaching you. I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Believe what you want, my friend... but debate is not for you.

But you are looking at it from a modern perspective, we are talking about a very patriarchal society when the scripture is written. I already gave you another example from the Bible where you do not have to be biologically descended from somone to be considered their descendent. It is another possibility, that is all. What bit did I ignore?

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you are looking at it from a modern perspective, we are talking about a very patriarchal society when the scripture is written. I already gave you another example from the Bible where you do not have to be biologically descended from somone to be considered their descendent. It is another possibility, that is all. What bit did I ignore?

The entire part, including the article I quoted, which completely refutes the idea that the Bible says anything besides every human being is descended from Eve, and then of course later on, from Noah.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The entire part, including the article I quoted, which completely refutes the idea that the Bible says anything besides every human being is descended from Eve, and then of course later on, from Noah.

And I said in a patriarchal society you don't have to be biologically linked to someone to be considered their descendent. If you want to understand what the Bible is saying, don't apply your own values, apply those of the scripture seen throughout it. I gave the example of Gentiles which were accepted as descendents of Jacob and incorporated into ethnic Israel despite having no biological connection to Jacob. Just like Jacob was a patriarch, so was Adam. We can be considered his descendents without being biologically related.

[Adrian II]

So when did I say anything about anything there?

Evolution, the Bible, homosexuality, history. Your views reflect a lack both of knowledge and of experience.

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on someone who valiantly (and without any ad hominems!) defends his views against so many detractors in various threads. Kudos to you for that sang froid.

But I also remember an exchange we had last year, when you told us that your family dissuaded you from reading the Bible and that you had therefore never really bothered to look at it. I impressed on you that you had a right to read anything you wanted and to pursue your own interest and curiosity. I even pointed out to you various angles from which to study the Bible.

Call me a sentimental old cynic, but I supposed that it would make you a wiser man. It is disappointing to see that only a year later you censure other peoples' lifestyles and views in the most scathing terms in the name of the Bible and 'nature', though based on scant knowledge of either. Have your curiosity and will to learn suddenly evaporated? Has one year of reading Scripture entitled you to pass judgment on science, parenting and other peoples' emotional or sexual life alike?

Did it teach you false pride instead of modesty?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I owe you an apology.

I confused you with our friend Rhyfelwyr.

I could blame it on my doddering old age, my professional bias or my recurrent fits of cynicism, but there is simply no valid excuse. I am sorry, Philipvs. Of course I still hate your guts in a roundabout, Backroomish sort of way, but I promise I will ne'er confuse you with the gentleman from Scotland again.

I feel genuinely relieved. Though we have had our disagrements I respect your intellect and integrity. Your apology is most greatfully accepted.

Now, let us consider Adam and Eve, before I move to refuting Rhy, I should point out something about inbreeding.

Inbreeding is only bad if the two organisms have defective genes, if man and woman 1.0 were perfect they could get away with it.

So, lets start with the first words of the Bible,

"In the beggining when God created the heavens and the earth," (Gen:1.1)

Later:

So God created Adam (humankind) in his
image
In the image of God he created
him (them)
male and female he created them. (Gen:1.27)

The parenthasis is mine. Chapter two contradicts this with the whole rib/penis bone/flank bit about Eve, though. It's a narrative very similar to other Eastern and Mediteranian ones, there's nothing particually special about it. Prometheus formed man out of clay, and when he stole fire (i.e. technology) for them Zeus' punishement was to inflict all the woes of the world upon man via woman.

As to there being other people, that's contradicted by the story of Babel, where God scatters all the previously unified people, and changes their languages from the original common tongue into a cacophony of babbling.

[Incongruous]

Bleh, embarassing mistake. I've been reading a site on ancient Greek which started with John 1:1 and that got me confused with the God created the Heavens and the earth bit, its a while since I read Genesis, I've only been through the OT fully once.

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

[Tribesman]

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it?

OMG I don't believe it

I don't think I'm making the Bible contradict itself.

Thats true , the bible contradicts itself without any input from you. What you are doing though is inventing stuff and saying its in the bible

[Askthepizzaguy]

And I said in a patriarchal society you don't have to be biologically linked to someone to be considered their descendent. If you want to understand what the Bible is saying, don't apply your own values, apply those of the scripture seen throughout it. I gave the example of Gentiles which were accepted as descendents of Jacob and incorporated into ethnic Israel despite having no biological connection to Jacob. Just like Jacob was a patriarch, so was Adam. We can be considered his descendents without being biologically related.

Sometimes I think you go out of your way to deliberately avoid my points.

I am weary. Can anyone who was following what I said pick up where I left off and explain to Rhyfelwyr how it says in the Bible that we all came from Eve, yes even the fantasy women that Cain mated with, and that later on, we apparently all came from Noah's family too, because everyone else was wiped out.

So that's not just one, but two Biblical examples of a severe incestuous all-in-the-family sexathon.

[Tribesman]

So that's not just one, but two Biblical examples of a severe incestuous all-in-the-family sexathon.

The OT is full of incest , even "god ordered" incest from after god had set down the incest laws in the 3rd book .
But I suppose thats just one of those contradictions you don't have to make up eh Rhyf

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG, in all fairness, how can you expect Rhy to hold his ground in this debate if he isn't allowed to make up arguments from the bible?

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG, in all fairness, how can you expect Rhy to hold his ground in this debate if he isn't allowed to make up arguments from the bible?

Oh be niceth.

Rhyfelwyr holds diametrically opposing views from my own on many things, and sometimes I don't feel he argues his points very well, but I try to treat him with respect. Sometimes I show through satirical example how illogical some tenets of religion are from the perspective of an outsider, or how different it seems to be from common sense, but I try not to mock Rhyfelwyr himself, only criticize what I consider to be a poor argument and explain why. As you might see, we have a decent enough rapport outside of these threads, though we sometimes grate on one another's nerves.

[Incongruous]

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

I'm fuzzy on Heretical teachings (), but what?

How is this even justified by the ministry of Jesus? Where on earth did Jesus procalim that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm fuzzy on Heretical teachings (), but what?

How is this even justified by the ministry of Jesus? Where on earth did Jesus procalim that?

Calvin decided that since God was all powerful then EVERYTHING must be according to his direct will. Ergo, evil acts must be something God ordained as part of his Divine Plan.

Further, God decides who he wants to save and inflicts upon them his "Special Grace" which compels them to love him, as opposed to "Common Grace" which is what everyone else gets, does not allow them to love God, condemns them to Hell, but makes their Earthly life bearable.

Such is Calvinism.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah it was coming eventually.

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I read about Calivinist thought during my Humanities class and I also checked on him during my ethics class. I'm struggling to remember but... wasn't he really into the fire and brimstone kind of sermons? Or am I mixing him up with someone.

You know, I'm going to look him up right now. He was interesting to say the least, and not in a positive way as I recall.

[Samurai Waki]

I read about Calivinist thought during my Humanities class and I also checked on him during my ethics class. I'm struggling to remember but... wasn't he really into the fire and brimstone kind of sermons? Or am I mixing him up with someone.

You know, I'm going to look him up right now. He was interesting to say the least, and not in a positive way as I recall.

Yeah I think you're right, I seem to remember a section on John Calvin when I had to take Theology in School. Even the Catholics thought he was a bit extreme, and this was during the Witch Hunt Era.