Genesis and The Big Bang

[elucin8er]

I'm a practicing Catholic, and from the teachings i've received, Genesis isn't a history textbook. It's not to be taken literally, nor is the rest of the Bible, because if it was to be taken literally then the world would be a mere 6000 years old, and fossil evidence has shown that is clearly false. But the human author of Genesis, like the author of Revelation, used a hell of a lot of symbolism in the writings. The 6 "days" of creation are are not 24 hours. After all, God lives in eternity. Time units are meaningless. Each biblical Day in that book could have varied from a split second to 65million years in the human scale of time. And since no one has yet found the conversion formula for eternity to time units, this explanation seems pretty reasonable. The Bible itself isn't a history and science textbook. It is for dealing with matters of faith and faith only. I'm amazed that people treat the Bible as what it's not supposed to be (a textbook on the sciences), then easily disprove it as false because it's "facts" are flawed, and then believe they have crumbled the foundation of the Christian faith. Unless you're a fundamentalist, or someone desperate for a way of disproving the bible when clearly you can't fight science facts with faith facts, the Bible is not something to be taken literally on matters such as the history of the universe.

 

See, the bible is supposed to be taken literally. Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. The only reason why fundamentalism is dying out, is because science is moving forward. Christianity needs to change it's story as it crumbles or die out - it twists it's own logic until you can't disprove it.

 

It is constantly changing to suit science. Now you have theories like god causing evolution, prayers only being answered 'some of the time' and that god isn't perfect after all. All of them weak changes to the story, as a result of being backed into corner by science and logic.

 

When have we changed the story? And why would we need to change the story. The only people that should be changing stories are those who take the Bible literally. You assume all religious people have identical views, this is not the case.

[Rebdragon]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Not once did you explain how the big bang occured.

 

The theory of matter waging in a 'war' against antimatter is plauseable, however it does not explain what caused the initial reaction to occur. Science cannot explain exactly what caused the big bang, so I do not find your patronising tone justified. Creationism gets a point in favour of the big bang, and as soon as people start linking science and religion instead of seperating them, the more progress we'll make.

Towards what? Appeasement?

 

Religously speaking, science-relgion unity doesn't get is anywhere but delusion. Scientifically speaking, unity makes us as a race dumber. I get that you want to sing kumbaya, but I wouldn't use the word "progress."

[Zamorakshadow]

Religion has no place in science. Uniting them would cause nothing but problem.

 

 

Science has tons of evidence supporting that the Big Bang happened. Scientists don't know what caused it yet, but they are searching for it. And instead of arguing about Science vs Religion we should be helping the Scientists to find out.

[Iamdan]

When have we changed the story? And why would we need to change the story. The only people that should be changing stories are those who take the Bible literally. You assume all religious people have identical views, this is not the case.

 

Did you read like, any of my post apart from the bit about changing the story?

[elucin8er]

When have we changed the story? And why would we need to change the story. The only people that should be changing stories are those who take the Bible literally. You assume all religious people have identical views, this is not the case.

 

Did you read like, any of my post apart from the bit about changing the story?

 

I read your entire post, what's your point? Your arguement revolves around reading the bible literally vs taking a metaphorical angle. You claim we changed the story after the literal meanings crumbled, I replied with my post. Problem?

 

 

 

Religion has no place in science. Uniting them would cause nothing but problem.

 

 

Science has tons of evidence supporting that the Big Bang happened. Scientists don't know what caused it yet, but they are searching for it. And instead of arguing about Science vs Religion we should be helping the Scientists to find out.

 

You need to read more posts before doing a 1 hit reply. Big Bang and creationism currently go hand in hand. Read, then post.

 

Religously speaking, science-relgion unity doesn't get is anywhere but delusion. Scientifically speaking, unity makes us as a race dumber. I get that you want to sing kumbaya, but I wouldn't use the word "progress."

 

There is more in this world than proven fact and science. Religion is a major influence on our world, and it is very important we explore it further. Ignoring it altogther is foolish and naive. Faith in a higher power isn't something that should be dismissed, every human race has believed in something greater than ourselves, our inner faith and existence tells us there is something more. The potential of the human mind is astounding, such a complex intelligent creation cannot merely be the result of a long chain of evolution. The moment we started questioning life, and strived to obtain knowledge instead of working out effiecient ways to live and produce offspring ( the goal of life for other eukaryotes and prokaryotes ) was the moment the human race knew there was something more.

 

Quote from a source, wording it better than I could

 

What could science have in common with religion, when religion seems so irrelevant to the scientist? Yet, religion still has a firm hold on billions of believers worldwide, dealing with questions not answerable through the five senses. What happens to the soul? What is the nature of it, or the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to begin with? The race is still drawn to answers provided by religion and often cannot be shaken from them by criticism, even if some beliefs defy common sense, which is in itself very odd. Something instinctive in man seems to respond to the concept of worlds beyond the senses.

 

I could write forever, but it's enough for now, short blocks are the best.

[Iamdan]

I read your entire post, what's your point? Your arguement revolves around reading the bible literally vs taking a metaphorical angle. You claim we changed the story after the literal meanings crumbled, I replied with my post. Problem?

 

Yes. My post disputed your reply before you even made it, and I gave examples.

 

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

Now you have theories like god causing evolution, prayers only being answered 'some of the time' and that god isn't perfect after all. All of them weak changes to the story,

[TTanT]

If I had to choose between the Gensis and the Big Bang, I would choose the Big Bang.

 

Why? Because the Big Bang is the more likely scenario. It has been worked out mathematically, or in others words has some proof to its name.

 

 

Genesis has a book and "seniority."

 

Yet where was God for the Greeks? The ancient Egyptians? The Native Americans? The Chinese? Would a God (who obviously loves attention, if any of Christianity's practices are to be taken seriously), really let so many be ignorant to his prsence for so long? Would he really (if not believing is truly a sin) damn so many to a trip to hell, without a chance at another afterlife?

 

The number of different religions, not to mention the fact that Judaism and Christianity took so long to take root, stirkes a severe blow to Genesis.

 

Therefore, out of the two Big Bang is far mroe likely. It has fact backing it up, and doesn't rely on outdated ideas and half-truths.

[Zamorakshadow]

There is more in this world than proven fact and science. Religion is a major influence on our world, and it is very important we explore it further. Ignoring it altogther is foolish and naive. Faith in a higher power isn't something that should be dismissed, every human race has believed in something greater than ourselves, our inner faith and existence tells us there is something more. The potential of the human mind is astounding, such a complex intelligent creation cannot merely be the result of a long chain of evolution. The moment we started questioning life, and strived to obtain knowledge instead of working out effiecient ways to live and produce offspring ( the goal of life for other eukaryotes and prokaryotes ) was the moment the human race knew there was something more.

 

It is not our "inner faith" that tells us anything, it is the "faith gene". Humanity has a gene that causes us to be religious. This gene spreaded through natural selection, because in the past it was more of a "storytelling-creativity gene", and the humans who told better stories and were more creative used to get along with other humans better, having more children, spreading the gene that with time would become a "religious gene".

 

Yes, something as complex as the human can come from a long chain of evolution.

 

Even if there is a "Higher power" around, we should search him by trying to find empirical evidence of his existence. Just worshipping different Gods whitout evidence for their existence ( what religion is theese days) is useless, and shouldn't be mixed with science at all.

[Amaranth_GTO]

What happens to the soul?

If I'm right, it dies. If you're right, it goes to either heaven or hell. If the Hindu are right, it is reborn.

What is the nature of it, or the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to begin with?

If there is a purpose, it is to reproduce and to advance our species. Or to glorify God.

 

EDIT: Wow, I've never heard of the faith gene thing. Seems very interesting though, thanks for making me learn something today Zamorakshadow :thumbup: Link for anyone who wants to read a bit about the gene

[TTanT]

What happens to the soul?

If I'm right, it dies. If you're right, it goes to either heaven or hell. If the Hindu are right, it is reborn.

What is the nature of it, or the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to begin with?

If there is a purpose, it is to reproduce and to advance our species. Or to glorify God.

 

Don't forget reaching Nirvana, to continue the Hindu example.

[Shinjula]

Um I actually had to take measurements of the red shift and use it to calculate the age of the universe for an astronomy class, so that why believe in the big bang.

 

 

I think what adrenal is really wanting to know is how many people believe in the big bang because they trust a scientist and how is that better than trusting the bible, but I dont think hes taking into account the nature of the scientific method. That actually people are trusting a system which contains balances and checks. A peer reviewed system which allows for repudiation of faulty theories.

 

Which I think is a fairly good reason for trusting it over the system under which religion operates, which is basically a text book which isnt supposed to change.

[elucin8er]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

[Iamdan]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

[stonewall337]

Scientists seem to go about this the wrong way.

 

When creationists ask where the Universe came from, why not reply asking where God came from?

 

Obviously, the same place the matter which compressed, then exploded came from.

 

There is no scientific answer, as either event is neither repeatable, (well, I guess in theory they are) nor observable. People think you are an idiot if you claim that a tornado through a junkyard created a 747 ready to fly, yet they believe that given enough time, far more, and far more advanced creatures can just "become".

 

BTW: If a frog turns into a prince right away, that is a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science.

 

Neither can be proven, both are based on faith. As the Bible has never been disproven, and I see no feasible proof for evolution/the big bang, I will believe that there is a God. Especially when one looks at the plethora of hoaxes which litter the evolution side of origins, such as the piltdown man, Lucy, the "human gills" and many others.

 

Therfore, seeing as there is more evidence for the Biblical side, I choose to believe the Biblical explanation.

 

 

In addition , to explain the whole starlight from millions of lightyears away, if the earth is young. Well, God obviously didn't create Adam and Eve as newborns, nor were all the plants or animals anything other than fully grown. The light from the sun would have already been created reaching earth, as would the light of the stars. In essence, the light was created, not just the source of the light.

[Wisp]

 

Therfore, seeing as there is more evidence for the Biblical side, I choose to believe the Biblical explanation.

 

 

What? How the hell is there more evidence for the biblical explanation. How is there any more evidence for that than any other religion's origin stories?

You want evolution, here's evolution. We can breed animals to have certain characteristics. That's why there are so many dog types, why corn is so big, stuff like that.

That's not natural evolution, but it's evolution nonetheless.

[stonewall337]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

 

 

By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

[stonewall337]

 

Therfore, seeing as there is more evidence for the Biblical side, I choose to believe the Biblical explanation.

 

 

What? How the hell is there more evidence for the biblical explanation. How is there any more evidence for that than any other religion's origin stories?

You want evolution, here's evolution. We can breed animals to have certain characteristics. That's why there are so many dog types, why corn is so big, stuff like that.

That's not natural evolution, but it's evolution nonetheless.

 

That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse. You can breed short corn to grow taller, or yield more harvest, yet you cannot breed a cherry tree to yield watermelons. You are using a straw man. You are claiming that because micro evolution, which is scientific and provable occurs, that of course, macro evolution, which is neither observable, nor repeatable is of course also true. That is not a logical correlation, and your argument cannot hold water.

[Wisp]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

 

 

By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from?

The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions.

 

EDIT:

That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse.

What's the difference?

Nothing, other than more time.

[Skull]

Congratulations, you can read wikipedia. I've got some other pages you might want to read.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

 

More to come.

[stonewall337]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

 

 

By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from?

The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions.

 

EDIT:

That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse.

What's the difference?

Nothing, other than more time.

There is a huge difference between micro and macro. A big dog changing into a little dog yes, but it is still a DOG. Not a horse. There is no evidence of macro, whilst there is of micro. You used a straw man. That is like saying there is no difference between a orange and a apple but taste.

 

As well skull, even Darwin stated that his whole theory of natural selection would collapse if missing links were not found. You would think there should be a plethora, yet there are not. As well, his whole theory with the birds and their various size beaks proved micro, not macro evolution.

 

As well there are a number of problems with Carbon dating, such as the assumptions it makes, such as there having always been the same amount of gasses in the atmosphere, which is the same as me seeing a candle in a room, observing the rate of burn, and stating that the candle had a starting height of 8 inches. I don't know how long it was burning, nor that the rate was the same.

[Wisp]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

 

 

By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from?

The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions.

 

EDIT:

That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse.

What's the difference?

Nothing, other than more time.

There is a huge difference between micro and macro. A big dog changing into a little dog yes, but it is still a DOG. Not a horse. There is no evidence of macro, whilst there is of micro. You used a straw man. That is like saying there is no difference between a orange and a apple but taste.

Pretty sure that's not a straw man argument.

I meant the difference in changes. Either way, I don't think anyone thinks dogs evolved into horses so that's irrelevant. What you can take is what is considered the common ancestor and trace that. Lots of micro changes add up to macro.

 

Either way, you still haven't answered, how does a biblical explanation have more proof than:

1: Any other religious origin story

2: Scientific Theories.

[stonewall337]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

 

 

By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from?

The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions.

 

EDIT:

That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse.

What's the difference?

Nothing, other than more time.

There is a huge difference between micro and macro. A big dog changing into a little dog yes, but it is still a DOG. Not a horse. There is no evidence of macro, whilst there is of micro. You used a straw man. That is like saying there is no difference between a orange and a apple but taste.

Pretty sure that's not a straw man argument.

I meant the difference in changes. Either way, I don't think anyone thinks dogs evolved into horses so that's irrelevant. What you can take is what is considered the common ancestor and trace that. Lots of micro changes add up to macro.

 

No, they don't. You see, whilst micro can be proven, macro can not. Never has a dog changed into a horse, even with alot of time. That is why we have so many dog breeds, but not half dogs-half horses. Before I debate more on this argument, look at the difference between the two. Look them up. You will see how different they are.

 

As well, no origin theory can have more "proof". It all comes down to faith, even the Big Bang. However, other parts of the Bible are far more verifiable than any other religious book, not to mention the Bible has never been disproven, and that also stands for it.

 

And for theories, the reason they are theories is they don't have solid proof. If they did, they would be laws.

[warri0r45]

What happens to the soul?

If I'm right, it dies. If you're right, it goes to either heaven or hell. If the Hindu are right, it is reborn.

What is the nature of it, or the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to begin with?

If there is a purpose, it is to reproduce and to advance our species. Or to glorify God.

 

EDIT: Wow, I've never heard of the faith gene thing. Seems very interesting though, thanks for making me learn something today Zamorakshadow :thumbup: Link for anyone who wants to read a bit about the gene

 

The "God gene" is a very poorly described concept because the idea that one gene can control whether you're religious or not is ridiculous. Religiosity is a complex trait and as such would probably have many genetic and environmental factors affecting it. Phasing it in any other way is unscientific and ignores the full picture of how genetics works and how biological traits can be influenced by environmental factors.

 

Having said that, I think there is a shard of truth the God gene idea, in the sense that religiosity is a completely natural trait and doesn't necessarily mean religious ideas must be true. As an analogy, take arachnophobia. A lot of people are scared of spiders, but does this mean all spiders are dangerous? No, some are harmless. It's just an evolutionary adaptation that makes us scared of anything that looks like a spider, regardless of whether its dangerous or not.

 

The ability to form religious stories for solidarity, comfort and ethical enforcement among a group of people may just be an adaptation for survival.

[Grim_]

[hide]

 

Do you really think when it was first written everyone gathered in church and discussed the symbolic importance of things? No. Would fundamentalism be so widespread until recently if it hadn't been even more widespread in the first place? No.

 

 

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically.

 

----

 

Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded.

 

I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere.

 

They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on.

 

Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with.

 

What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely?

 

You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better.

 

 

By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from?

The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions.

 

EDIT:

That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse.

What's the difference?

Nothing, other than more time.

There is a huge difference between micro and macro. A big dog changing into a little dog yes, but it is still a DOG. Not a horse. There is no evidence of macro, whilst there is of micro. You used a straw man. That is like saying there is no difference between a orange and a apple but taste.

 

As well skull, even Darwin stated that his whole theory of natural selection would collapse if missing links were not found. You would think there should be a plethora, yet there are not. As well, his whole theory with the birds and their various size beaks proved micro, not macro evolution.

[/hide]

Three questions

1~ If you where not raised as a christian would you still believe in the scriptures or would you believe in another creation myth?

2~ If god is all knowing and all powerfull then A~ Why did it take it a whole 6 days to create earth? B~ I find it highly doubtful that any "god" would let such a malicious creature as man to transcribe its writings.

3~ So you are saying that every singly species must be part of the fossil record and be found for you to not believe about the magic garden with talking snakes?

[Amaranth_GTO]

There is no scientific answer, as either event is neither repeatable, (well, I guess in theory they are) nor observable. People think you are an idiot if you claim that a tornado through a junkyard created a 747 ready to fly, yet they believe that given enough time, far more, and far more advanced creatures can just "become".

Actually, according to the big bang big crunch theory, it is very feasible that these events are repeatable. I will admit, people will think you are an idiot if you said that. But people would also call you an idiot if you said God just decided to put a 747 in the middle of a junkyard too. People believe that because evolution has a very large amount of supporting facts behind it.

BTW: If a frog turns into a prince right away, that is a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science.

You're right, an organism evolving over millions of years is science. And doesn't a frog turning into a prince seem much more like a bible story than something out of a science textbook?

Neither can be proven, both are based on faith. As the Bible has never been disproven, and I see no feasible proof for evolution/the big bang, I will believe that there is a God. Especially when one looks at the plethora of hoaxes which litter the evolution side of origins, such as the piltdown man, Lucy, the "human gills" and many others.

There is loads of feasible proof for evolution, just think about what Darwin said for about a minute. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. This makes perfect sense, for example, lets take a species of insects. These insects can be white, or black. They live in an environment where the majority of their surroundings are black. And we have a species of bats that prey on these insects. Which insects will survive longer, the ones that look like white specs on a black background, or the ones that blend in? And the ones that survive longer will have more chances to reproduce, and therefore it will be more likely that the gene for a black exoskeleton will be passed on. Eventually almost all of these insects will be black. The same mechanism can be applied for every gene, and as time goes on life will evolve and change. Another piece of evidence for evolution is that the genetic coding mechanism for human DNA is the same as the genetic coding mechanism for plant DNA, or fungal DNA.

 

Therfore, seeing as there is more evidence for the Biblical side, I choose to believe the Biblical explanation.

There is far, far more evidence for evolution than there is for the Bible. In fact, I would like for you to present some evidence supporting the Bible, as I have not seen much.

 

 

In addition , to explain the whole starlight from millions of lightyears away, if the earth is young. Well, God obviously didn't create Adam and Eve as newborns, nor were all the plants or animals anything other than fully grown. The light from the sun would have already been created reaching earth, as would the light of the stars. In essence, the light was created, not just the source of the light.

I have never heard this, or read this in the bible before. I'm going to assume this is you making up an explanation that God didn't give you. I guess it makes a little sense, the problem is the light of some stars have only been seen by us rather recently, so I guess God only made the light from some of the stars.