A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Solja_Boy]

I believe God is eternal, but I also believe that the universe has not been. Both the scientific studies done demonstrate this, and the Biblical reference is to a beginning of time.

I think in terms of dimensions we comprehend - the spacial components and time - are not all there are. God is in a different dimension of understanding than we have, and is not limited by time as we are. Kind of a "Reader's Digest version" of my belief, but it's how I think of it.

Is god like one of the beings in stargate that assend to a different dimension or plane of existance?

 

[This_person]

Is god like one of the beings in stargate that assend to a different dimension or plane of existance?

I've never watched Stargate, so I'm not sure what ascension you're talking about.

However, I believe as I said above.

 

[PsyOps]

I believe God is eternal, but I also believe that the universe has not been. Both the scientific studies done demonstrate this, and the Biblical reference is to a beginning of time.

I think in terms of dimensions we comprehend - the spacial components and time - are not all there are. God is in a different dimension of understanding than we have, and is not limited by time as we are. Kind of a "Reader's Digest version" of my belief, but it's how I think of it.

My point was for the sake of argument. In the grand scheme of things 1) God does not go into enough detail to really know 2) Not having a real understanding of what eternity is how do you define "...in the beginning" and 3) It really makes no difference in what the real message of the bible is.

 

[Tonio]

I sort of agree with what you're saying here. The theory was provided to us as a truth, and the consistent work of millions of people throughout time has been to discredit the information provided (as truth). So, the observable is life itself, the information was provided to us (not our own theories), and the revisions are really in the understanding of the information - not the information itself. So, I kind of agree with your distinction here.

What information do you say was provided to us? How does life itself constitute evidence for a transcendental being?

True, but churches are not leaders. Bin Laden believes he should kill us because we don't follow his version of his religion, or follow religion the way he wants, or whatever. That doesn't make him right.

While that is technically correct, it misses the point. Moderates in religions are absolutely right to condemn their extremist colleagues. But their reasons for doing so are weak ones, usually a claim that the extremists are wrong about the nature of the religion's gods. From a standpoint outside that religion, the moderates' claims about the nature of their gods have no more validity than the extremists' claims. The two groups seem to agree that the goal of human behavior should be about pleasing their gods - apparently their only area of disagreement is on what their gods allegedly want. Surely one should reject Bin Laden's type of extremism because of the enormous harm it poses to human life and human freedom.

if ID were viewed as the scientific theory it is (not specifically Creationism, which is tied to a specific religion, but ID as an all-encompassing theory), it could be proven or disproven with that same process.

ID relies on the baseless assumption that a certain level of complexity could only have been designed intentionally. Matthew Chapman's book "40 Days and 40 Nights" offers evidence that ID began as an attempt to push religion disguised as science.

"False" in what sense - that it's not scientifically proven?

No, false as in illusory.

I was referring to the concepts of an expanding universe - implying that all of time, space, and matter originated at a single point, and everything has not "always been there", but that there must have been a single point of initiation of everything. Sort of like "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" concept - there was nothing (including time), and then there was time, and matter and space. This is a scientifically backed theory.

The concept's similarity to an element of Genesis doesn't amount to scientific verification. For one thing, many other religions have creation myths. For another, the burden is on Genesis to show that a god was responsible for the initiation. The fact that science does not have a complete explanation for the birth of the universe does not automatically indicate the existence of any higher beings. The same is true of Noah's Ark - many religions have flood myths, and one theory is that the myths arose after the end of the last Ice Age cause sea levels to rise, but that doesn't automatically prove Genesis' claim that a god caused the flood to punish humankind.

 

[This_person]

How does life itself constitute evidence for a transcendental being?

In that it is completely inexplicable. Now you don't see it, now you do. Something more significant than a chemical reaction HAD to account for it, in my opinion.

While that is technically correct, it misses the point. ... Surely one should reject Bin Laden's type of extremism because of the enormous harm it poses to human life and human freedom.

And, this is my point - regardless of what we find, that does not require any particular act. We were created with free will, not a subservience to a religion. Even those that feel we have the subservience CHOOSE to believe that, proving themselves wrong in the process

ID relies on the baseless assumption that a certain level of complexity could only have been designed intentionally. Matthew Chapman's book "40 Days and 40 Nights" offers evidence that ID began as an attempt to push religion disguised as science.

While you may think the assumption baseless, the people who believe it thiynk it's not. I think you find it baseless because there's not yet been a provable essance to it - like science's views on the origins of life.

The concept's similarity to an element of Genesis doesn't amount to scientific verification. For one thing, many other religions have creation myths. For another, the burden is on Genesis to show that a god was responsible for the initiation. The fact that science does not have a complete explanation for the birth of the universe does not automatically indicate the existence of any higher beings.

I agree, it's not proof of either side (any of the religions nor science). It just continues to find scientific evidence in support of what was said thousands of years ago about the origins of the planet, lending credence to other claims.

The same is true of Noah's Ark - many religions have flood myths, and one theory is that the myths arose after the end of the last Ice Age cause sea levels to rise, but that doesn't automatically prove Genesis' claim that a god caused the flood to punish humankind.

I agree, it does not prove it. It merely suggests that these are not just "stories" out of people's need to be told stories, but there is some truth to them.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Why can't people leave people to what they believe? I don't believe in God what so ever, but I don't try to make other believe that.

 

[This_person]

Why can't people leave people to what they believe? I don't believe in God what so ever, but I don't try to make other believe that.

That's a great question. I do believe entirely, but I won't try and change your mind, nor belittle your belief.

Many people can discuss their respective beliefs without debasing the other person's belief. Some can't.

 

[Bustem' Down]

That's a great question. I do believe entirely, but I won't try and change your mind, nor belittle your belief.

Many people can discuss their respective beliefs without debasing the other person's belief. Some can't.

Yeah, imagine how peaceful the world would be if we just stayed out of each other's personal beliefs.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I just finished a book called "The Basque History of the World". did you know :

• They have a ODD blood type, there is a higher (than global) average (55%) of Type O blood
• The Basques are well-known to have the highest percentage (around 33%) of Rhesus-negative blood of any human population, and so are regarded as the original source of this factor.
• (Probably due to) Rhesus-negative blood the stillbirth rate among Basque that impregnate a outsider is much higher than Avg.
• Many Basque people exibit an extra vertebra (a 'tail bone' -- called a 'cauda')
• Basques have lower than normal body temperature, and lower than normal blood pressure
• Basque is related to no known language. Basque absolutely cannot be shown to be related to any other language at all. The structure of the Basque language is also very distinctive, it is said to contain only nouns, verbs, and suffixes. The language strongly defines the Basque people. It's thought that Basque is the descendant of a spoken language originated by the Neanderthal people
• further reading has proposed that the Basque were the founders of Europe, and the creators of Stone Heng

Hmm… it sounds like they are half-way down the road to being a different species

I'm suspicious of this one. There is no known anthropological record of Neanderthals interbreeding with Homo Sapien or Homo Erectus, if that were even biologically possible and since that species died out I see no reason why the language would persist. also, since Neaderthal lived before written history and had no written language, how would anyone even be able to suspect that Basque is a decendant of it?

 

[This_person]

Since Neaderthal lived before written history and had no written language, how would anyone even be able to suspect that Basque is a decendant of it?

You ask very good questions!

 

[TimAllen]

The attributes of the Basque language (Euskera) isnt in dispute just the origin of it. The possibility that the Basque interbred with Neanderthals isnt new or original do a Google search on it.

How could neanderthals have existed as research puts it "The Neanderthals are thought to have already been there for about 150,000 years, but seem to have died out by about 30,000 years ago, presumably out-competed by the modern humans during a period of cold weather."

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth! He then created man this all happened about 6000 years ago or so. Before God created Man there was no one!

 

[Bustem' Down]

How could neanderthals have existed as research puts it "The Neanderthals are thought to have already been there for about 150,000 years, but seem to have died out by about 30,000 years ago, presumably out-competed by the modern humans during a period of cold weather."

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth! He then created man this all happened about 6000 years ago or so. Before God created Man there was no one!

That's actually a non issue since the current topic is not the creation story, but the origins of the Basque culture. Neaderthals are very real, whether God created the Earth or not, thier remains and fossils are there. I guess from a theological standpoint, a more accurate question would be are they Human or not? Neaderthal, Homo Erectus, Java Man, etc. are all different species of Man and not the same as Homo Sapien so God could have created all of them as the Bible states he created animals first, and then Man (Homo Sapien) last. I'll admit, science is not without flaws, things past have been done wrong and since corrected. Caucasians, Africans, and Asiatic peoples were originally classified as three distinct subspecies basically through the ignorance of the culture of the past. My question is why do people hold so dearly to the earth being only about 6,000 years old. There is not one place in the Bible that dates when the Earth was created. There is no timeline on how long Adam and Eve spent in the Garden, so who is coming up with this magic number?

 

[Tonio]

In that it is completely inexplicable. Now you don't see it, now you do. Something more significant than a chemical reaction HAD to account for it, in my opinion.

What you mean by "significant"?

When one is faced with an unexplained event, saying something like "Oh, it must have been the work of gods" is a non-answer. That is like attempting to solve an algebra equation by making up values for X and Y.

We were created with free will, not a subservience to a religion.

Some schools of Christian thought reject free will in favor of predestination. Both positions almost certainly rest on assumptions, although the latter seems to involve a few more. My point is that anyone can present any claim about the nature of supernatural beings and there is no way to test such claims.

While you may think the assumption baseless, the people who believe it thiynk it's not. I think you find it baseless because there's not yet been a provable essance to it - like science's views on the origins of life.

The assumption is baseless because the proponents started with another assumption - the existence of a single god - and attempted to marshal evidence to support that assumption. That stands the scientific method on its head. What ID does is stack assumption onto assumption like a Jenga game. The strongest explanations are the ones that involve as few assumptions as possible.

I agree, it's not proof of either side (any of the religions nor science). It just continues to find scientific evidence in support of what was said thousands of years ago about the origins of the planet, lending credence to other claims.

First, the scientific theories about the universe's origin have some resemblance to many religion's myths. Genesis has no valid claim of specialness. Second, no modern scholars claim that the Trojan War grew from a dispute over which goddess was the fairest, even though there is evidence for the war itself. There's no reason to treat the Bible any differently. With any historical and cultural artifact, separating the supernatural claims from the historical claims is a necessity. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

I agree, it does not prove it. It merely suggests that these are not just "stories" out of people's need to be told stories, but there is some truth to them.

I agree that these weren't merely exercises in storytelling. The likely origin is that these arose out of a desire to have explanations for natural events, before the development of the scientific method. This is even more obvious in the Greek and Norse myths.

 

[Tonio]

Why can't people leave people to what they believe? I don't believe in God what so ever, but I don't try to make other believe that.

Excellent question. Despite the scientific points I've been making, I have little objection to the deist definition of a god as an unconscious first cause. My real issue is with the definition of a god as a moral agent, because that distorts the definition of morality into simple submission.

 

[This_person]

What you mean by "significant"?

When one is faced with an unexplained event, saying something like "Oh, it must have been the work of gods" is a non-answer. That is like attempting to solve an algebra equation by making up values for X and Y.

You're putting things in opposite order. God provided the answer, not became the answer.

Some schools of Christian thought reject free will in favor of predestination. Both positions almost certainly rest on assumptions, although the latter seems to involve a few more. My point is that anyone can present any claim about the nature of supernatural beings and there is no way to test such claims.

We actually started this diversion with the worry that proving theistic claims would mean we have to follow a particular religion. I'm just saying we don't have to, just because we prove there is a God.

The assumption is baseless because the proponents started with another assumption - the existence of a single god - and attempted to marshal evidence to support that assumption. That stands the scientific method on its head.

But, isn't that basically what scientific testing does - take an unsubstantiated guess, and figure out a way to prove it, and perform tests that either tend to substantiate or disprove a postulation? In this case, the postulation is that there is an intelligence that designed everything we understand. Now, we just need to imagine and perform some tests which would tend to substantiate or disprove this.

What ID does is stack assumption onto assumption like a Jenga game. The strongest explanations are the ones that involve as few assumptions as possible.

And, that's why science has no answer - there are no reasonable assumptions to start from, and make claims about. So, the concept of lifelessness becoming life is ignored, and evolution is discussed as if it answers the question. It doesn't.

First, the scientific theories about the universe's origin have some resemblance to many religion's myths. Genesis has no valid claim of specialness.

Well, it kind of does. While the Sumarians had their Gilgamesh (sp?) with the same story 1,000 years earlier than Moses wrote it down, people know of Adam a lot more than Gilgamesh. And, the claims made many, many years ago are seeming to pan out as accurate (that's quite a feat for that long ago, don't you think?). So, it's a little special.

Second, no modern scholars claim that the Trojan War grew from a dispute over which goddess was the fairest, even though there is evidence for the war itself. There's no reason to treat the Bible any differently. With any historical and cultural artifact, separating the supernatural claims from the historical claims is a necessity. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

It's not all or nothing, I agree. And, that includes the supernatural claims. Some may be able to be believed as written.

I agree that these weren't merely exercises in storytelling. The likely origin is that these arose out of a desire to have explanations for natural events, before the development of the scientific method. This is even more obvious in the Greek and Norse myths.

I agree it's much more obvious in other religions and myths, as they aren't panning out as accurate.

 

[This_person]

Excellent question. Despite the scientific points I've been making, I have little objection to the deist definition of a god as an unconscious first cause. My real issue is with the definition of a god as a moral agent, because that distorts the definition of morality into simple submission.

Why?

The submission would be because one agrees, or at least understands what's being taught.

God, in my view, teaches morals, and acts as final judge. However, there is such an enormous amount of grey area in moral questions, morals cannot be followed simply on a submissive basis. One must use their own thoughts and beliefs. God provides the outline to form those beliefs.

Religious people have no more right to judge than atheists on matters that are very grey like this. That's why God is the final judge - He knows where your heart is, not how well you can explain away your actions.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Excellent question. Despite the scientific points I've been making, I have little objection to the deist definition of a god as an unconscious first cause. My real issue is with the definition of a god as a moral agent, because that distorts the definition of morality into simple submission.

I both agree and disagree with that. While some religions past and present require submission, there are religions where that's not the case as evident with free will. I find that the submission has less to do with the deity andmore to do with the leaders of these churches. Per as an example, I wouldn't say that in the 1st Baptist church there is a required submission to God, but the Jim Jones cult, or that polygomist sect in Texas did require some kind of submission. There is a difference between obeying the laws of a god because you believe and want to, and being forced by a Human church leader to do so.

 

[TimAllen]

That's actually a non issue since the current topic is not the creation story, but the origins of the Basque culture. Neaderthals are very real, whether God created the Earth or not, thier remains and fossils are there. I guess from a theological standpoint, a more accurate question would be are they Human or not? Neaderthal, Homo Erectus, Java Man, etc. are all different species of Man and not the same as Homo Sapien so God could have created all of them as the Bible states he created animals first, and then Man (Homo Sapien) last. I'll admit, science is not without flaws, things past have been done wrong and since corrected. Caucasians, Africans, and Asiatic peoples were originally classified as three distinct subspecies basically through the ignorance of the culture of the past. My question is why do people hold so dearly to the earth being only about 6,000 years old. There is not one place in the Bible that dates when the Earth was created. There is no timeline on how long Adam and Eve spent in the Garden, so who is coming up with this magic number?

After doing quite a bit of research both last night and the morning, of course via the great online knowledge base that we all have access to. I have found that none of the methods used to date specimens from the earth have been proven to be accurate. As is the case with dating lava rock from a volcano that we know erupted only a couple hundred years ago but Carbon dating and such put the rock's age at millions of years. Again the Earth and Man according to the oldest history book we know The Bible, has only been around for about 6000 years To be quite honest the different languages, ethnic origins, etc., etc. came from the time of the Tower of Babyl, when in the Bible it states that all people spoke the same tongue (language) and were building a tower to reach Heaven, God was not happy with this and changed everyone's language so none of them could understand each other, then the people that spoke the same languages went with their own and scattered the earth. I am sure you have heard that story.

 

[Bustem' Down]

After doing quite a bit of research both last night and the morning, of course via the great online knowledge base that we all have access to. I have found that none of the methods used to date specimens from the earth have been proven to be accurate. As is the case with dating lava rock from a volcano that we know erupted only a couple hundred years ago but Carbon dating and such put the rock's age at millions of years. Again the Earth and Man according to the oldest history book we know The Bible, has only been around for about 6000 years To be quite honest the different languages, ethnic origins, etc., etc. came from the time of the Tower of Babyl, when in the Bible it states that all people spoke the same tongue (language) and were building a tower to reach Heaven, God was not happy with this and changed everyone's language so none of them could understand each other, then the people that spoke the same languages went with their own and scattered the earth. I am sure you have heard that story.

Yes, who hasn't, but The Bible is just written history. At the time it was written, Egypt was already an established nation, as well as Sumar. My point is that there is no established timeline in the Bible whatsoever so there is no reason to say the Earth is only 6000 years old. Adam and Eve could have spent 50,000 years in the Garden before partaking of the fruit and that would make the Earth over 6000 years old. Furthermore, the Book of Genesis was written by Moses who wrote those things after they had happened. There is no telling how long of a time frame exsisted between the Creation and when Moses was born, lived, and wrote that book.

 

[TimAllen]

Yes, who hasn't, but The Bible is just written history. At the time it was written, Egypt was already an established nation, as well as Sumar. My point is that there is no established timeline in the Bible whatsoever so there is no reason to say the Earth is only 6000 years old. Adam and Eve could have spent 50,000 years in the Garden before partaking of the fruit and that would make the Earth over 6000 years old. Furthermore, the Book of Genesis was written by Moses who wrote those things after they had happened. There is no telling how long of a time frame exsisted between the Creation and when Moses was born, lived, and wrote that book.

Do me a favor and open this link, then read the entire thing. Let me know what you think.

JesusCreated.org

I want you to read it because you just stated that the Bible is written history, and you are right it is. It is also chronologically correct.