Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 7 of 56 | |
|
|---|
craeonics
Reply #122 Friday, September 12, 2003 1:46 PM
Reply #122 Friday, September 12, 2003 1:46 PM
Problem is: you can't find out.
Dave: ancient history (Sumeria nd the like) is fascinating (in fact I'm thinking of going back to school and study it some day), yet I always found the "they came from outer space" theory to be rather weak. It's too easy to go point at some unknown race of space travellers and say "they did it". If so: where are they now?
Dave: ancient history (Sumeria nd the like) is fascinating (in fact I'm thinking of going back to school and study it some day), yet I always found the "they came from outer space" theory to be rather weak. It's too easy to go point at some unknown race of space travellers and say "they did it". If so: where are they now?
IPlural
Reply #123 Friday, September 12, 2003 2:27 PM
Reply #123 Friday, September 12, 2003 2:27 PM
Wait a second....
That doesn't float, or maybe it does...
For one thing translations hold as much water as Nostradamus writing in tongues(figuratively speaking) to protect himself from the church and someone claiming to know exactly what was being said all these years later.
The other point about God (I've read in more than one place that the original text states the Plural as in Gods, and no not on this board) and him being ready to have humans kill. Well if I am thinking correctly, he *told* them *directly* whom to kill and when to kill.
So I would think that the fact that he didn't tell anyone to kill anyone since then pretty much proves it out, Thou shalt not Kill, means exactly that. Or God would have said Thou shalt Kill (fill in blank)...
That doesn't float, or maybe it does...
For one thing translations hold as much water as Nostradamus writing in tongues(figuratively speaking) to protect himself from the church and someone claiming to know exactly what was being said all these years later.
The other point about God (I've read in more than one place that the original text states the Plural as in Gods, and no not on this board) and him being ready to have humans kill. Well if I am thinking correctly, he *told* them *directly* whom to kill and when to kill.
So I would think that the fact that he didn't tell anyone to kill anyone since then pretty much proves it out, Thou shalt not Kill, means exactly that. Or God would have said Thou shalt Kill (fill in blank)...
IPlural
Reply #124 Friday, September 12, 2003 2:28 PM
Reply #124 Friday, September 12, 2003 2:28 PM
crae, thats the problem with God. It is to damn easy to manipulate any given situation by claiming the all unknown decreed it so.
Aleatoric
Reply #126 Friday, September 12, 2003 2:59 PM
Reply #126 Friday, September 12, 2003 2:59 PM
IPlural,
I would argue that the rabbinical translation would be more accurate, as per the following:
The translation of the 6th commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill' is more than likely a result of the translation chain from hebrew to greek to latin to english. Additionally, no matter how diligent or honest a translator is, their translation will be steeped in the context of their own mindset (Traduttore, traditore; the translator is the traitor).
I would argue that the rabbinical translation would be more accurate, as per the following:
| Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing |
The translation of the 6th commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill' is more than likely a result of the translation chain from hebrew to greek to latin to english. Additionally, no matter how diligent or honest a translator is, their translation will be steeped in the context of their own mindset (Traduttore, traditore; the translator is the traitor).
craeonics
Reply #127 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:14 PM
Reply #127 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:14 PM
Aleatoric has a point. Translation is done by interpreting a text and retelling what you think it said or means. Trouble strikes when the translations start to get a life of their own.
So your English bible is really an interpretation of several interpretations of primarily Jewish sources (which get some of their stuff elsewhere, but that's another story).
So your English bible is really an interpretation of several interpretations of primarily Jewish sources (which get some of their stuff elsewhere, but that's another story).
joetheblow
Reply #128 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:41 PM
Reply #128 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:41 PM
amazing...
With all the translations and so forth it still comes down to reading comprehension?
Makes you wonder how so many people can be 'sure' its ok to do something or not because God said so.
Very cool thread.
With all the translations and so forth it still comes down to reading comprehension?
Makes you wonder how so many people can be 'sure' its ok to do something or not because God said so.
Very cool thread.
Hus
Reply #129 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:42 PM
Reply #129 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:42 PM
Why is it that the idea of God only came about when Man came about? Isn't this proof enough that we created him? Why didn't God leave any signs that he was here millions of years ago? He was supposedly building this planet for 6 days or 5 days, and then created us? Well how long did it take him to make the rest of the universe? We are but a speck floating in darkness.
eieio
Reply #130 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:51 PM
Reply #130 Friday, September 12, 2003 4:51 PM
'God' has always been, just as the universe is endless. Infinity is incomprehensible to man.
Religion is a man made device used to control other men. It was the tool of the first shaman, medicine man, whatever you want to call him. Long before there were written texts of any kind.
Religion is a man made device used to control other men. It was the tool of the first shaman, medicine man, whatever you want to call him. Long before there were written texts of any kind.
paxx
Reply #131 Friday, September 12, 2003 5:14 PM
Reply #131 Friday, September 12, 2003 5:14 PM
Aleatoric, interesting the difference you make between "kill" and "murder". But, I ask you, what IS the difference between "killing" and "murdering"?
According to the Mariam-Webster it goes as follow:
Kill: to deprive one of life.
Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
So it seems that the difference between those two word lies in the "law". "Murder" is a crime, it's unlawfull. While "Kill" is more general. In other words, to "murder" is to kill under conditions forbidden by law. But when we talk about God's words, what IS the law? God does not go by man's laws. So what ARE God's laws about murder? Especially when put in context, where God gave his Ten Commendments, those WERE the law. The very base of what was to be Jewish Law. How then could God be refering to a concept that requires a prior legal definition? Catch 22?
Aleatoric
Reply #132 Friday, September 12, 2003 6:09 PM
Reply #132 Friday, September 12, 2003 6:09 PM
Paxx,
It does sort of come down to a circular argument, doesn't it?
I certainly think some of it comes down to the fact that the writers of the bible already had some history to refer to, in terms of the way things are worded, both in terms of other codes, such as Hammurabi, and in terms of both oral and tribal tradition. As an interesting point, there is some anthropological evidence that (at the tribal level) murder was considered to be the killing of someone in your own tribe, whereas killing outside your tribe was not much different (in their concept) of killing an animal. In other words, it was only a violation if the victim was part of your tribe. That apparently included all of the restrictions laid out in the body of tribal law, which was probably much of the source of the ten commandments (among others).
As the tribes commingled, the body of law was stretched to include these others and ultimately gained acceptance as a set of rules that would include humanity as a whole. To some degree, it was Jesus Christ who made a case for the idea that the law applied to all, whether jew, or gentile, or philistine, etc.
At some point, there comes the idea that there must be some ultimate authority to which we can refer, that is the one true source of our ethical code. To many, this is God. Thing is, if you don't believe, God isn't much of an authority. Although I do believe, I also contend that the primary source of the authority of our ethical codes and laws is the concept of identification and self-interest. In the same manner that we desire to not be harmed, killed or robbed (among other things), and given that we have an identification with others, in that we can reasonably state that, by and large, all humans share the same basic desire for freedom from harm, it is a logical extension of that characteristic to use it as the basis for our social contract with each other.
It does sort of come down to a circular argument, doesn't it?
I certainly think some of it comes down to the fact that the writers of the bible already had some history to refer to, in terms of the way things are worded, both in terms of other codes, such as Hammurabi, and in terms of both oral and tribal tradition. As an interesting point, there is some anthropological evidence that (at the tribal level) murder was considered to be the killing of someone in your own tribe, whereas killing outside your tribe was not much different (in their concept) of killing an animal. In other words, it was only a violation if the victim was part of your tribe. That apparently included all of the restrictions laid out in the body of tribal law, which was probably much of the source of the ten commandments (among others).
As the tribes commingled, the body of law was stretched to include these others and ultimately gained acceptance as a set of rules that would include humanity as a whole. To some degree, it was Jesus Christ who made a case for the idea that the law applied to all, whether jew, or gentile, or philistine, etc.
At some point, there comes the idea that there must be some ultimate authority to which we can refer, that is the one true source of our ethical code. To many, this is God. Thing is, if you don't believe, God isn't much of an authority. Although I do believe, I also contend that the primary source of the authority of our ethical codes and laws is the concept of identification and self-interest. In the same manner that we desire to not be harmed, killed or robbed (among other things), and given that we have an identification with others, in that we can reasonably state that, by and large, all humans share the same basic desire for freedom from harm, it is a logical extension of that characteristic to use it as the basis for our social contract with each other.
Ingui
Reply #133 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:28 PM
Not sure about that one
Who would have had the idea BEFORE man came about?
I saw a few common arguments, such as the lack of evidence supporting the "Biblical" history and the one about "interpretation vs. translation". The body of supporting evidence
is enormous. But a few simple observations. One book, written over the course of millenia, by many different authors, still maintaining a common theme and surviving intact for some 2,000 years, despite attempts to eradicate it from the face of the earth, and containing foreknowledge of future events and even scientific knowledge that was not known to the men of its time.
Anyway, "the big picture", or topic of this thread wasnt about the bible, but evolution vs creation. I pose this question... Can a watch evolve? A car? A device containing hundreds or even thousands of moving parts coming together by chance. Take apart a watch and toss the pieces into a bucket and shake it around for as long as you like, shake it forever if you can. Those pieces will never fall into place to form a working timepiece. How much larger and more intricate our universe is. Our own bodies. We are amazingly designed. Did you ever stop to think about your own eyes, what goes into the "simple" act of sight and recognition. Your hands. Your senses. Every design requires a designer. A skinner should realize that better than anyone
What an astounding string of coincidences that allow the matter in an "empty" universe to explode, and the force of this "bang" to form planets and stars. Think of the incredible engines that are stars. And for one planet to form and come to rest at just the right distance from one such perfectly balanced star, not too hot, not too cold. Spinning at just the right speed. The atmosphere and all the life within it, sprang out of chance circumstance and "evolved" the delicate cycles that exist and perpetuate the cosmos. Our world and the life within it is , our universe is, a perpetual motion machine. The engineer who designed it knew his craft. From the tiniest single celled organisms to the massive stars burning all around us.
Man , I hope I didnt sound grandiose.
But thats my "take" on the subject.
cya
Reply #133 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:28 PM
| Why is it that the idea of God only came about when Man came about? |
Not sure about that one
Who would have had the idea BEFORE man came about?I saw a few common arguments, such as the lack of evidence supporting the "Biblical" history and the one about "interpretation vs. translation". The body of supporting evidence
is enormous. But a few simple observations. One book, written over the course of millenia, by many different authors, still maintaining a common theme and surviving intact for some 2,000 years, despite attempts to eradicate it from the face of the earth, and containing foreknowledge of future events and even scientific knowledge that was not known to the men of its time.
Anyway, "the big picture", or topic of this thread wasnt about the bible, but evolution vs creation. I pose this question... Can a watch evolve? A car? A device containing hundreds or even thousands of moving parts coming together by chance. Take apart a watch and toss the pieces into a bucket and shake it around for as long as you like, shake it forever if you can. Those pieces will never fall into place to form a working timepiece. How much larger and more intricate our universe is. Our own bodies. We are amazingly designed. Did you ever stop to think about your own eyes, what goes into the "simple" act of sight and recognition. Your hands. Your senses. Every design requires a designer. A skinner should realize that better than anyone
What an astounding string of coincidences that allow the matter in an "empty" universe to explode, and the force of this "bang" to form planets and stars. Think of the incredible engines that are stars. And for one planet to form and come to rest at just the right distance from one such perfectly balanced star, not too hot, not too cold. Spinning at just the right speed. The atmosphere and all the life within it, sprang out of chance circumstance and "evolved" the delicate cycles that exist and perpetuate the cosmos. Our world and the life within it is , our universe is, a perpetual motion machine. The engineer who designed it knew his craft. From the tiniest single celled organisms to the massive stars burning all around us.
Man , I hope I didnt sound grandiose.
But thats my "take" on the subject. cya
Koasati
Reply #134 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:51 PM
[Message Edited]
Reply #134 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:51 PM
| One book, written over the course of millenia, by many different authors, still maintaining a common theme and surviving intact for some 2,000 years, despite attempts to eradicate it from the face of the earth, and containing foreknowledge of future events and even scientific knowledge that was not known to the men of its time. |
Yes, but then you have to explain the Dead Sea scrolls, which were written around the same time period as the New Testament. They tell a slightly different story of Jesus.
I do agree that no way this is all an accident....... I just can't even conceive of that. That this entire universe, and all that's in it, all the tenacity of life, all this simply happened by random chance.......... now that would be a miracle in my mind. 
[Message Edited]
kona0197
Reply #135 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:52 PM
Reply #135 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:52 PM
Don't get me started on the mormons and "adding on to the bible"...
Doreen
Reply #136 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:56 PM
Reply #136 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:56 PM
There are some things in this world man will "never" be able to explain and thank God for that or it would be a boring world w/o mistery don't you think?
Go to a good Observatory at night alone if possible just once and really look at the stars in space and specially the moon, go to the beach and look at the ocean and the things in it and just be quiet and think about things, do you seriously think we and the earth we live on was all by accident???
My biggest thing I've often wondered in the past was if God is God and powerful why did he create imperfect ppl that messed up over an apple back in the begining? Why did he have the apples next to where they could even reach them? Why give us temptation and choices over them?
but then why would God create little puppets, dolls or robots?
"A real living God" would want "real living people" capable of their own minds not being controlled as puppets on a string by him or the company he created to love would be boring to him and the love we returned would mean nothing to him was the best answer I could come up w/ on that...
I'm not sure God is Perfect but I think his "Love" is perfect causing his only flaw which keeps him from distroying us even from the first time we messed up.
[Message Edited]
Go to a good Observatory at night alone if possible just once and really look at the stars in space and specially the moon, go to the beach and look at the ocean and the things in it and just be quiet and think about things, do you seriously think we and the earth we live on was all by accident???
My biggest thing I've often wondered in the past was if God is God and powerful why did he create imperfect ppl that messed up over an apple back in the begining? Why did he have the apples next to where they could even reach them? Why give us temptation and choices over them?
but then why would God create little puppets, dolls or robots?
"A real living God" would want "real living people" capable of their own minds not being controlled as puppets on a string by him or the company he created to love would be boring to him and the love we returned would mean nothing to him was the best answer I could come up w/ on that...
I'm not sure God is Perfect but I think his "Love" is perfect causing his only flaw which keeps him from distroying us even from the first time we messed up.
[Message Edited]
Koasati
Reply #137 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:57 PM
Reply #137 Friday, September 12, 2003 7:57 PM
The Dead Sea scrolls have nothing to do you the Mormon.......... They were no Mormon living in the Middle East during the life time of Jesus. 
They were no Mormon living in the Middle East during the life time of Jesus. 
Ingui
Reply #138 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:06 PM
Reply #138 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:06 PM
No, no Mormons, but they did have cars even way back then. As Doreen points, Adam and Eve "messed up" , so "God drove them from the garden in his Fury" 
Doreen
Reply #139 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:09 PM
Reply #139 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:09 PM
wise guys everywhere... hehe
actually the one I like the bestest is that we have fossils to test our faith? (I dunno me is tired it's somewhere in this thread and I ain't looking for it)
actually the one I like the bestest is that we have fossils to test our faith? (I dunno me is tired it's somewhere in this thread and I ain't looking for it)
kona0197
Reply #140 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:09 PM
Koa, that was the sentence that made me think of mormons.
I am not a mormon. Have no wish to participate in the occult.
Reply #140 Friday, September 12, 2003 8:09 PM
| They tell a slightly different story of Jesus. |
Koa, that was the sentence that made me think of mormons.
I am not a mormon. Have no wish to participate in the occult.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 7 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Friday, September 12, 2003 1:27 PM
"Who really is God? Who is the true God?"
Do you think is worth finding out?
Seems worth exploring to me.