Evolution

[QuietOC]

Religion was an incredibly important force in getting us to where we needed to be (The Modern Age). However now that we are here religion should be fading away, it serves no point in a modern, scientific society.

Actually, I am not sure religion in the sense of blind belief (how some use the word faith) or superstitions has done anything benefitial. Such criticism of religion is evidenced as far back as the writing of Genesis 1. 

I think Genesis and the Bible in general hasn't been given a very fair reading by any moderns, whether fundamentalists or atheists. I know the fundamentalist, while giving lip service to believing it, largely ignore what it says.

[killbot1000]

Actually, I am not sure religion in the sense of blind belief (how some use the word faith) or superstitions has done anything benefitial. Such criticism of religion is evidenced as far back as the writing of Genesis 1.

I think Genesis and the Bible in general hasn't been given a very fair reading by any moderns, whether fundamentalists or atheists. I know the fundamentalist, while giving lip service to believing it, largely ignore what it says.

 

 

I meant religion in general for advancing us to this point, not fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is messed up no matter how you look at it. I have given Genesis a fair reading but it doesn't relate to anything real (as in it doesn't correlate to what were finding in rocks, etc.). Unless there is evidence to support it, I will mark Genesis off as false.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I find what it says is amazingly consistent with current tentative theories. Yes, it is profoundly limited in our eyes, by the culture in which it was expressed.

The author(s) of Genesis trashes astrology and worship of sun and moon. It is almost like these ancient tribal herdsmen were anti-religion or something. I dare say their contemporaries likely called them atheists. Perhaps the point of Genesis 1 is that whatever exists in the universe no matter how majestic or awe inspiring is not divine.  

 

The point still remains that many other stars and galaxies (and pretty much the entire universe) were around for a very long time before the sun came along, let alone the earth.

 

If the bible is wrong on the first page, what can be said about the rest!

[killbot1000]

The point still remains that many other stars and galaxies (and pretty much the entire universe) were around for a very long time before the sun came along, let alone the earth.

 

If the bible is wrong on the first page, what can be said about the rest!

 

Exactly!

[QuietOC]

The point still remains that many other stars and galaxies (and pretty much the entire universe) were around for a very long time before the sun came along, let alone the earth.

Where does Genesis 1 say that the sun or earth came before other stars and galax

es?

 

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

Notice it uses "lights" not stars, galaxies, etc. Isn't it relatively common that outer space is not visible from a planet. Maybe the writer(s) had some reason to believe that the view from earth was different between the period of plants to the rise of animal life. Clearly the writer(s) are making a distinction between the visible light and the stars themselves which do appear in verse 16.

[Maxintosh]

So, you think religious fundamentalism is unique to our planet?

I think it's unique for planets stuck on stupid. Presumably since they are intelligent enough to develop technology to get here, they should have all of the ignorance of religion ironed out before they arrive

[killbot1000]

Where does Genesis 1 say that the sun or earth came before other stars and galax

es?

 

 

Notice it uses "lights" not stars, galaxies, etc. Isn't it relatively common that outer space is not visible from a planet. Maybe the writer(s) had some reason to believe that the view from earth was different between the period of plants to the rise of animal life. Clearly the writer(s) are making a distinction between the visible light and the stars themselves which do appear in verse 16.

 

1. Genesis says in the first line: First god made heaven AND the Earth. So that's where it says that at least the EARTH came before anything else except heaven, and that includes stars, galaxy, and our sun. If one examines current scientific evidence on planet formation, they will find this passage (the first passage in the bible) to be wrong.

 

2. Outer space is completely visible on our planet, the only reason why we have trouble seeing the stars at night is because of our vast cities that block out the light of the stars with our artificial light. You can even see the outline of the galaxy we live in if you go further out enough. You can even make out two nearby dwarf galaxies with the naked eye, this argument of outer space not being visible from the earth is false.

 

3. Genesis also says "So god saw that light was good, so he separated the darkness from the light and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"". The problem with this is that it is also false, night and day are simply that...night and day. They do not have a value judgment one way or the other, if day is good, then it gives the implication that night is bad. Also, the sun continues to emit light, even if the earth is facing away from it, so the simple act of calling light "day" and the darkness "night" seems to indicate that whoever wrote the bible, had no concept of how the earth fit in with the rest of space, which is perfectly OK for a book written 2000 years ago, but the book CAN'T be written by or even inspired by God, because god would have KNOWN how the Earth fit in with the rest of the universe and would have communicated this to whoever was writing it down. Also, light cannot be separated from darkness, it goes through it. Light is a wave going through the ocean of space, it cannot really be separated FROM that space. Lets argue this point from a slightly unconventional view, if day is good, then having it be daylight all the time would be good too right? WRONG! If it were daylight all the time everything would die on this planet, including animals and plants, and if they are considered good, then how can good kill good? Just a point to throw out there.

 

4. Stars argument:

Genesis does mention stars, however they are only an afterthought to creating the earth, and all the evidence we have on stars seem to indicate that there were definitely stars older than the earth. In fact we can observe stars TODAY that are older than the earth. So if this is true, then why didn't the first line of Genesis say "First god created stars, and these stars were grouped together into clusters, etc."

 

I am going to be a little bit harsh here. You wont want to listen, but this is the truth:

 

You are making up excuses to justify your own beliefs. You plug any hole in your doctrine's argument, you give every statement in your own beliefs the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time cast off any other argument as false if there is at least one mistake in it. Sometimes even if there are no mistakes in it.

 

You make assumptions as to the thoughts of the people who wrote this piece, you say to yourself "maybe they were thinking ___________ and this led them to write the passage in this way which means the passage is TRUE". It is a remarkable skill in self-deception. I am also suspecting that you will latch onto ONE of my points, shoot a hole through it and then simultaneously say that BECAUSE of that, you are right. This is not the case, you will simply demonstrate that I am wrong, which has nothing to do with you or your beliefs being right.

 

Wake up.

[apowerr]

Religions such as Christianity in modern times:

You have evidence that something is clearly wrong or false, such as Adam and Eve for example. Once proven to be impossible, one manipulates what they have read "Oh this is metaphorical, not literal. Of course there really weren't an Adam and Eve". More and more of what one believes is proven to be false, or at lease not possible; So one continues to modify the meaning of the original text to fit modern times. Really, what are you left with? An out of date, essentially 'broken' or not functional set of guidelines that have been dragged and translated/modernized through the centuries but are no longer adequate. I'm of the opinion that when Genesis was written, it was intended to be taken as literal.

 

Monotheistic beliefs were a step over pagan beliefs such as worshiping the sun and stars. Now the belief in solid fact is ready to replace many aspects of monotheism. Belief in solid fact will no doubt be succeeded by some other form of spirituality if humanity continues to endure.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Where does Genesis 1 say that the sun or earth came before other stars and galax

es?

 

 

1 First God made heaven & earth

 

16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

 

It is quite clear that the bible says the Earth was created first (alongside heaven, not meaning the sky) and then much later came the sun and the stars.

 

There are no metaphorical nuances here - it quite clearly states the earth was around before the stars, which is wrong.

 

Great post, btw, Killbot

[QuietOC]

You are making up excuses to justify your own beliefs. You plug any hole in your doctrine's argument, you give every statement in your own beliefs the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time cast off any other argument as false if there is at least one mistake in it. Sometimes even if there are no mistakes in it.

What doctrine do I have?

 

I am sorry but I find everything challenging what I was taught. That's great, that is life. I personally find your post not at all challenging, and I see no need to justify myself. I could care less about my current understanding, but I am not going to abandon anything without reason. And so far nothing you have said about Genesis amounts to anything against it. I am not saying Genesis must be right, but you seem to be saying it just must be wrong. I do not see any reason yet to believe that. So, if you think it wrong, please improve your arguments, thanks!

You have evidence that something is clearly wrong or false, such as Adam and Eve for example. Once proven to be impossible, one manipulates what they have read "Oh this is metaphorical, not literal. Of course there really weren't an Adam and Eve". More and more of what one believes is proven to be false, or at lease not possible; So one continues to modify the meaning of the original text to fit modern times.

Again, what does Genesis actually say about Adam and Eve?

 

For one it definitely does NOT say they were the first or only people on earth. I should also point out that Adam is the Hebrew word for man.

 

Why are all of you so against the Bible? I mean why can there be no possibility that the Bible could be true? As far as I can tell you are all just against demonstrably ridiculous interpretation of the Bible that you learned from the fundamentalists. Faulting a book because of some wierd interpretation of it by a very different group of fairly uneducated people 2000 years after it was written, is really not intellectually honest.

It is quite clear that the bible says the Earth was created first (alongside heaven, not meaning the sky) and then much later came the sun and the stars.

Too bad it doesn't actually tell us the order. Even in the first line it states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Oh, no! heavens is mentioned first and then earth! And then Adam/man is created twice. The writers aren't wrong--they are idiots, or maybe they aren't idiots and knew what they were writing. You stupid modern just haven't figured it out yet. Sorry, talk to your choir.

 

Doesn't anyone have anything interesting to say about evolution?

[Maxintosh]

I should also point out that Adam is the Hebrew word for man.

Yes, and also for the word 'human kind'.

 

I mean why can there be no possibility that the Bible could be true?

It is a collection of grossly over exaggerated stories, so yes, parts of it may be based in truth but it is so poorly translated and misinterpreted that for the most part it is worthless today. It was written to teach, but as mentioned earlier, in this day and age we simply do not need anything that it contains.

[QuietOC]

So yes, parts of it may be based in truth but it is so poorly translated and misinterpreted that for the most part it is worthless today. It was written to teach, but as mentioned earlier, in this day and age we simply do not need anything that it contains.

That might be true, but I'd prefer to work on it a little more. There has been way too many losses of ancient literature by people who thought it was worthless, evil, or maybe just irrelevant. Richard Feymman a physicist Richard Dawkins likes to quote, did some work on one of our few surviving Aztec books. He found the ancient Aztecs had very accurate predictive model of the motion of

Venus. Ancient literature can be right, and just perhaps, we know less now than some knew previously.

[Numberzz]

I should also point out that Adam is the Hebrew word for man.

Adam may mean Man in hebrew but I'm pretty sure that Adam was a specific person. There is more evidence to support that he was than he wasn't.

Why are all of you so against the Bible? I mean why can there be no possibility that the Bible could be true? As far as I can tell you are all just against demonstrably ridiculous interpretation of the Bible that you learned from the fundamentalists. Faulting a book because of some wierd interpretation of it by a very different group of fairly uneducated people 2000 years after it was written, is really not intellectually honest.

Here are a few reasons why we don't think the Bible is true:

1. It says that the Earth is about 4500 years old.

2. It says someone can make wine out of water.

3. It says that that same man can come back to life.

4. It says that certain snakes and doves can talk.

 

I'd list more, but I'm sick, which means I have to go to church and repent my sins. :/

[QuietOC]

Here are a few reasons why we don't think the Bible is true:

1. It says that the Earth is about 4500 years old.

So, you are basically using the same type of reasoning to deny the Bible that religious fundamentalist use to deny modern science. Wonderful! Now go sit in the corner.

[Paranoid Marvin]

So, you are basically using the same type of reasoning to deny the Bible that religious fundamentalist use to deny modern science. Wonderful! Now go sit in the corner.

 

Good point, I'm sure there are a few stories in the bible that are factually accurate, if not inspired by real events. Like, Jesus was a real person, but since there is no god, how could he be the son

But without a doubt, genesis is completely wrong, which just casts doubts on the factual accuracy and to what degree the bible can be taken literally.

[killbot1000]

Good point, I'm sure there are a few stories in the bible that are factually accurate, if not inspired by real events. Like, Jesus was a real person, but since there is no god, how could he be the son

But without a doubt, genesis is completely wrong, which just casts doubts on the factual accuracy and to what degree the bible can be taken literally.

 

Yes, and this is the point that I really try to drive home. You put it a lot more elegantly than I do.

 

If the bible is simply a guide one uses to live their life by then thats fine.

 

The only time that I start to get weird with people is when they start to say the bible is true. A set of stories to guide ones life is one thing, but to say its true while acknowledging fallacies in parts of it while its supposed to be written by a perfect god is another. It is simply the lack of logic and reason that gets to me, not ones personal belief in any particular subject.

[QuietOC]

But without a doubt, genesis is completely wrong, which just casts doubts on the factual accuracy and to what degree the bible can be taken literally.

Well, I am very interested in learning whether Genesis is "without a doubt... completely wrong." I find the book fascinating--if it is true it challenges some common modern religious views. It is certainly an ambitious book, there is a lot there to be wrong, if it is wrong. So what exactly in it that should cast the biggest doubts?

 

Is this discussion still on topic?

[djet]

Well I've basically missed out on the last 3 pages and now that I've read em I'm pretty much glad I did.

 

The anti-religionists are basically staking claims saying, "Religion is so false.... the people that believe it are idiots." With only giving evidence they take from literal words. You guys know that before "Colombus sailed the ocean blue." or whatever, pretty much everyone believed the earth was flat. How come the writer of Genesis suddenly knew that we had a planet? He could have meant earth as the physical world that we can go to and heaven as the spiritual place we can't go to in any physical way.

 

Also the pro-religionists seemed to have been ignoring a lot of the other groups arguments and just picking away at what they can disprove.

 

ANYWAYS!!!!!!!

 

This topic was about evolution and I'm getting it back on topic.

 

I found that a lot of evolution's topics seem very unrealistic. The fact that evolution seems to come around mostly by spontaneous mutations that give an organim an advantage seems okay, but how come a reptile can go randomly to a bird. Feathers are fairly complex, and I don't think a random lizard would suddenly sprout feathers AND be able to have a good use for them..... prove me if I'm wrong. This sorta goes along with the eggs inside the body thing. How did that come about? Again I still believe in a lot of evolution, but there are some serious gaps in it and if someone says "We just don't know yet..." then how come you can say that religion is all just a random jump of faith while science is cold hard fact. I think I may have just gotten off topic again there....

[killbot1000]

Well, I am very interested in learning whether Genesis is "without a doubt... completely wrong." I find the book fascinating--if it is true it challenges some common modern religious views. It is certainly an ambitious book, there is a lot there to be wrong, if it is wrong. So what exactly in it that should cast the biggest doubts? Is this discussion still on topic?

Yeah its still on topic, because the implications for Genesis being right is that Evolution is wrong.But Genesis is obviously wrong though. There is no way that Earth was made BEFORE stars, but Genesis clearly states that earth was made before stars.Also:in Genesis it says "and the earth was without form and void" - No stellar body that we have ever encountered is completely without form (meaning what?) and void. All of them have some feature no matter how small which distinguishes it from other stellar bodies.in Genesis (near the end) god says "I have given every green plant for food." - Not Every Green Plant is edibleAlso the very STRUCTURE of Genesis seems to indicate a completely human hand. The first line says "first God created heaven and the earth", then it goes into a sequence of events until at the end of 7 days the earth is created. The problem with writing it this way is that it has the implication of time being linear, which we have discovered that its NOT linear. Time in fact slows down the faster one goes, bla bla bla ~~~insert physics and quantum physics {censored} here~~~. And even if all the data we've collected on time is wrong, it doesn't matter, if time is linear, how could their be a first AFTER god? The whole thing just takes a whole lot of rationalization to believe, and it actually makes more sense NOT to belief in the bible in this case.Coupled with the points that I have already mentioned.I am not trying to say that genesis is completely wrong or anything, all I am saying is that when one has two models for explaining the universe (science vs. faith), in this case, science explains more, and explains it MORE correctly, so why are we still using this antiquated model for explaining the universe? Why does it DESERVE our attention, why isn't it held up to the same peer-review standards that scientific journals are? Because it doesn't really explain anything, plain and simple.

I found that a lot of evolution's topics seem very unrealistic. The fact that evolution seems to come around mostly by spontaneous mutations that give an organim an advantage seems okay, but how come a reptile can go randomly to a bird. Feathers are fairly complex, and I don't think a random lizard would suddenly sprout feathers AND be able to have a good use for them..... prove me if I'm wrong. This sorta goes along with the eggs inside the body thing. How did that come about? Again I still believe in a lot of evolution, but there are some serious gaps in it and if someone says "We just don't know yet..." then how come you can say that religion is all just a random jump of faith while science is cold hard fact. I think I may have just gotten off topic again there....

 

Heres the thing, I don't think that I've met anybody here who is trying to prove anything RIGHT by using science, that is really the wrong way to describe it, it is the traditional, religious way to describe it.

 

Science is NOT cold hard fact, none of it is. It is all theory, meaning that it can be used to form a working model most of the time but we very rarely have every single aspect of something down to exactly how it works, we usually get to a point where 99 times out of a 100 were right, and we sit down and say to ourselves "good enough, were mostly right" but the fact is, unless its 100 out of 100 it is actually wrong. Science is in most cases actually WRONG.

 

But this is WHY we can speak to religious people the way we do. Faith has a random multiplier, it is not right 99/100 times, sometimes it not even right 1/100 times. It is completely random and based off of nothing but stories and superstition.

 

Science is more right than Religion, it is actually just less wrong. To break it down, I will trust 99/100 over maybe something/100.

 

Do you get what I am trying to say?

 

As for what we know so far on feathers and evolution:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_feathers

 

As for your problems with evolution, that is simple to explain. You are over thinking it. Meaning, you are jumping strait from NOTHING to FULL FEATHERS. when in actuality it probably goes something like this:

 

NO FEATHERS --------- EVOLUTIONARY STEP (maybe scales) --------------- EVOLUTIONARY STEP (Longer thinner scales) --------------------- EVOLUTIONARY STEP (Longer Thinner Hollow Scales) --------------Crappy early feathers ---------Better Feathers----------Modern Feathers.

 

I am not saying how this went down, I am only using it as an example to demonstrate both the complexity of evolution, and the lack of human understanding for intervals of time.

[QuietOC]

...but to say its true while acknowledging fallacies in parts of it while its supposed to be written by a perfect god is another. It is simply the lack of logic and reason that gets to me, not ones personal belief in any particular subject.

The Bible seems to view untrue personal beliefs as deception. The "woman" famously makes up words for God in Genesis 3 and is decieved.

"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Do not think prophet means foretelling the future, that is not the primary meaning.

insert physics and quantum physics {censored} here

Hey, you can't call that {censored}. That is the part of science that is rather interesting, and I believe I understand. You left out general relativity, chaos theory, and artificial intellegence. The latter though is mainly useless. Of course quantum electromagnetics and general relativity aren't terrible helpful in day-to-day life either. Damn, all my education is useless, arghhh...Sigh, I need to take an art class...

[Maxintosh]

He found the ancient Aztecs had very accurate predictive model of the motion of Venus.

Don't even go there Comparing the Aztecs to those that wrote the bible - is like comparing Halle Berry to Judge Judy. The Aztecs dealt with facts and they were very highly skilled mathematicians. Those that wrote the bible couldn't care less about the facts and liked to sensationalize everything to tell a story. Try again.

 

Like, Jesus was a real person...

There is actually more evidence that he wasn't a real person, than that he was....

 

With only giving evidence they take from literal words

As opposed to what, made up words? Leave that to the anti-choicers

 

It is completely random and based off of nothing but stories and superstition.

Exactly! Well said

[QuietOC]

I am not trying to say that genesis is completely wrong or anything, all I am saying is that when one has two models for explaining the universe (science vs. faith), in this case, science explains more, and explains it MORE correctly, so why are we still using this antiquated model for explaining the universe? Why does it DESERVE our attention, why isn't it held up to the same peer-review standards that scientific journals are? Because it doesn't really explain anything, plain and simple.

Well, if faith is false personal belief it deserves nothing--certainly not belief. Genesis at least deserves the attention of modern westerns because it is our background--whether it is true or false.

I am not saying how this went down, I am only using it as an example to demonstrate both the complexity of evolution, and the lack of human understanding for intervals of time.

Evolutionary biology can't explain complexity, but chaos theory does. As far as I can tell the biologists haven't a clue. For example, Dawkins seems to understand evolution as a linear probablistic process. Just like engineers, assume everything is linear because it is close enough, since we can't really handle the real non-linear math. Soft science = linear and probablistic assumptions.

Those that wrote the bible couldn't care less about the facts and liked to sensationalize everything to tell a story. Try again.

So, the Bible is the equivalent of the Inquirer or Fox News! And the Aztecs are the moral high ground, Wow!

[apowerr]

Why are all of you so against the Bible? I mean why can there be no possibility that the Bible could be true? As far as I can tell you are all just against demonstrably ridiculous interpretation of the Bible that you learned from the fundamentalists. Faulting a book because of some wierd interpretation of it by a very different group of fairly uneducated people 2000 years after it was written, is really not intellectually honest.

Thats indeed very true. When I was talking about how religious doctrines and texts are manipulated to fit modern times, I meant that just 1000 years ago no westerners (or at least very few) would consider the Bible anything but nearly 100% literal. If I am to reply, I will do some more research on Genesis first.

 

I'm not trying to challenge or put down anyones faith. I enjoy an intellectual conversation, which QuietOC and others are very good at

[killbot1000]

Well, if faith is false personal belief it deserves nothing--certainly not belief. Genesis at least deserves the attention of modern westerns because it is our background--whether it is true or false.

 

Then why do we not talk about Norse mythology, or the Greek/Roman gods? Why do we not discuss the epic of Gilgamesh, why do we not delve into the the depths of Zoroastrianism. Why do we not commonly talk about the Book of the Dead, etc. Why is the bible so important because its "our background". All of these other examples grew up in the same area, and each had at least SOME influence on the way Christianity turned out. Without other works to copy from (Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.), Christianity as we know it probably wouldn't exist, so why does it deserve any credit? It doesn't.

 

And that goes on to my second point.

 

We give too much credit to religion. It hasn't really done anything, except one thing, which IS important. Religion was used as a tool to unite people, to increase organization among people. Without it, we probably wouldn't have built huge temples, dense cities, etc. But the thing to keep in mind here is that the religion didn't do a single thing, it was the organization of people in general to which we owe all our credit to. We should not confuse organization with religion, they are two completely different things.

[QuietOC]

Religion was used as a tool to unite people, to increase organization among people.

I have to think that deep concern for knowing the truth has the effect of alienation, not uniting people.

 

Then a scribe came and said to him, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."

 

Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head."