NationStates Jolt Archive

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

Well, it can't be disproved. If that works for you go with it.

yea it makes alot of sense, i mean it's not like they would put a detailed description of how things came to be in genesis cause it just doesn't seem important, i think if the bible is true then who ever wrote genesis would've sumed up the creation rather than described the detailed process of it like evolution does

Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

The Earth came into existence before the stars? ;)

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

I've believed in this for a long time. I'm glad I'm not just the Crazy Man that believes Evolution and Creationism are two halves of the same thing. Now we're the Two Crazy people that believe in Theistic Evolutionism. In fact there are a bunch of Christians who believe each day to God was a couple million or billion years to us.

if it fits into your vision of God, it is okay. I know lots of people IRLly who believe in it.

i guess it depends on how literally you take the sequence of events in genesis.

i guess it depends on how literally you take the sequence of events in genesis.

I take it very literally. How it happened though, is where evolution comes in.

Well of course. Are we supposed to take creation myths to be literal truth and believe in something like this?

[camera pans to God]

"It sure is lonely here, being the only intelligent thing in the universe. I should make myself some pretty things to play with."

[stars and galaxies appear]

"Those are pretty good, if I do say so myself. I love the cool patterns, especially the spiral. I wonder what else I can come up with."

[camera focuses on one star]

"This looks like a nice spot, all cozy at the center of this little universe thingy I made. I think I'll make some other cool stuff here."

[planet pops into existence]

"Hmmm. It's all dark on one side."

[moon pops into existence]

"Ah. That's better. Let's see...what else?"

[planet's surface develops oceans and landmasses]

"Looks like that would be fun to run around on. Oh, I know! I'll make some organisms. Yeah, that sounds good."

[planet's surface is covered in life]

[camera focuses on human]

"I really like that one. I'll make it intelligent like me and then we'll have some real fun!"

I think the Big Bang Theory and the first verses of Genesis have some remarkable similarities.

Theory: Before the big Bang, our space and time did not exist. There was a complete lightless Void.

Bible: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth, the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,


Theory: Then, out of an area smaller than a molecule, an enormous blast of energy erupted, not only creating energy but space and time as well. Scientist speculate on the cause, but no one has any cogent theories. It is very mysterious. But most interesting: At about .02 seconds into the Big Bang, the Universe is mostly light (photons).

Bible: and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

It seems to me that the first three verses of Genesis could be a very exact description of the Big Bang.

Well of course. Are we supposed to take creation myths to be literal truth and believe in something like this?

[camera pans to God]

"It sure is lonely here, being the only intelligent thing in the universe. I should make myself some pretty things to play with."

[stars and galaxies appear]

"Those are pretty good, if I do say so myself. I love the cool patterns, especially the spiral. I wonder what else I can come up with."

[camera focuses on one star]

"This looks like a nice spot, all cozy at the center of this little universe thingy I made. I think I'll make some other cool stuff here."

[planet pops into existence]

"Hmmm. It's all dark on one side."

[moon pops into existence]

"Ah. That's better. Let's see...what else?"

[planet's surface develops oceans and landmasses]

"Looks like that would be fun to run around on. Oh, I know! I'll make some organisms. Yeah, that sounds good."

[planet's surface is covered in life]

[camera focuses on human]

"I really like that one. I'll make it intelligent like me and then we'll have some real fun!"

Funny enough that's actually one of my Creation Myths for my stories. Only Replace God with some other name I haven't thought up yet. It involves a diffrent Reality where everything centers around a Child God. Literally. This Child Diety sits at the center of the universe, for it is his Plaything.

I think the Big Bang Theory and the first verses of Genesis have some remarkable similarities.

Theory: Before the big Bang, our space and time did not exist. There was a complete lightless Void.

Bible: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth, the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,


Theory: Then, out of an area smaller than a molecule, an enormous blast of energy erupted, not only creating energy but space and time as well. Scientist speculate on the cause, but no one has any cogent theories. It is very mysterious. But most interesting: At about .02 seconds into the Big Bang, the Universe is mostly light (photons).

Bible: and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

It seems to me that the first three verses of Genesis could be a very exact description of the Big Bang.

But of Course, An Explosien, even the Big Bang, is a Reaction, so what was the Action?

God of Course. I mean, something that exists Speaking in a Place where nothing exists, it was bound to create a Big Bang like The Big Bang.

I believe evolution is being guided purposfully but only because I had a spiritual experience that made me believe that a Universal Intelligence/Creator of sorts exists. Had I not, I would still be an atheist that would only be looking for ways in which God could not be part of the picture.

I can understand where the atheists are coming from and I see the strong evidence for evolution as being pretty much indisputable. I cannot understand where Christians are coming from with the whole 6-day thing, and 6,000 year old stuff. I do however feel that if there is a God (and I feel very strongly that there is), then that being is probably guiding evolution (or at least it started off the process with an amazing program *DNA* that could guide its own evolution).

The basis of my belief

I don't want to risk going to hell+ Big bang seems stupid+ Evolution agrees with Genesis=

Theistic Evolution

Actually, you've pretty much described the position of the Catholic Church, as I understand it. God created all life, by means of the laws of genetics and evolution.

"This looks like a nice spot, all cozy at the center of this little universe thingy I made. I think I'll make some other cool stuff here."

mmmm...micro waved cancer ridden aliens:D

I see nothing wrong with this theory albeit it could be more entertaining (it has dinosaurs now but what about things popping into existence randomly)

Funny enough that's actually one of my Creation Myths for my stories. Only Replace God with some other name I haven't thought up yet. It involves a diffrent Reality where everything centers around a Child God. Literally. This Child Diety sits at the center of the universe, for it is his Plaything.

That sounds like it would be interesting reading. :)

I believe evolution is being guided purposfully but only because I had a spiritual experience

*sits in circle to hear tale*

I don't want to risk going to hell

a gambler eh?:)

I take it very literally. How it happened though, is where evolution comes in.

The Earth came into existence before the stars? ;)

theres the problem with taking it very literally.

*sits in circle to hear tale*

believe me I have tried to tell the tale in a way where it makes sense and is true to the experience but as soon as I start to speak it becomes a lie. An abstraction of the truth I felt. Nothing more than a pointer to the truth.

All I can really say (and here still, it isn't doing the experience any justice - moreso it is probably muddying the waters) is that I understood the oneness of all things and the divinity of oneness.

Damn, that sounds stupid. lol

I understood the oneness of all things and the divinity of oneness.

so it just popped into your head?

you’ know you can lie to make it more interesting ;)

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

Thats not theistic evolution ... thats old earth creationism if you believe the biblical order

Theistic evolution I could understand not the bible tale

Earth created before light

In fact Plants created before Light (Cause we know plants don't need light :rolleyes: why would you make something before the other thing it was dependent on ... god ain't a very good engineer)

Though which of the genisis stories are you believing in ? they are different as far as order of creation goes

so it just popped into your head?


yeah... I guess... like a deep understanding. Almost like a psychic conversation though. It seemed like all my questions about the universe were being answered with direct knowledge. The clarity that I had at the time was greater than I have ever felt in my life. I've actually experienced it a few times since. After it it's over though, I am only left with a shabby conceptual sense of what I had "learned" and am unable to put it together in detail. Again, I believe this is because there are no words to describe it. It's a truth far beyond words.

you’ know you can lie to make it more interesting ;)


OH did I forget to mention the part where God revealed her naked breasts to me? All 6 of them. And from each teet I drank and learned a new law for mankind to abide by. Send me $39.99 for full details.

It makes sense to me.

OH did I forget to mention the part where God revealed her naked breasts to me? All 6 of them. And from each teet I drank and learned a new law for mankind to abide by. Send me $39.99 for full details.

Do you take Visa?

yeah... I guess... like a deep understanding. Almost like a psychic conversation though. It seemed like all my questions about the universe were being answered with direct knowledge. The clarity that I had at the time was greater than I have ever felt in my life. I've actually experienced it a few times since. After it it's over though, I am only left with a shabby conceptual sense of what I had "learned" and am unable to put it together in detail. Again, I believe this is because there are no words to describe it. It's a truth far beyond words.




OH did I forget to mention the part where God revealed her naked breasts to me? All 6 of them. And from each teet I drank and learned a new law for mankind to abide by. Send me $39.99 for full details.

Can i pay by credit card?:)

Sorry - cash only and it has to be a donation, but you can't claim it on your taxes. I can't explain why or you won't want to send me your money.

So "Order" Today!

I dont like the name theistic evolutionism, it implies that you are a specific type of "evolutionist", different from other ones. I think it promotes this idea that there is something weird about a person who believes in God and evolution.

My grandma believes it.

I dont like the name theistic evolutionism, it implies that you are a specific type of "evolutionist", different from other ones.

Well that's hardly a misrepresentation. "God made stuff evolve" is a rather different position from "stuff evolved".

I think it promotes this idea that there is something weird about a person who believes in God and evolution.

I don't mind being considered weird. If I were considered normal by the any of the vast majority of human societies, then I'd be very concerned about myself, given the serious problems in those societies.

Well, I believe that God created the universe and designed its laws so that natural forces could produce beings capable of understanding him, and then allowed the laws to develop naturally and eventually create living things capable of having a spiritual essence and a link with God.

I guess that would fall under theistic evolution, but it's a little different in that it allows all living things to have a spiritual essence, with humans being the most developed (on this planet) and the others having certain degrees of it but not equal to that of humans.

i have problems with the idea of god guiding evolution. Evolution attempts to answer the question "how did the complexity of life come to be?", and, considering that it explains the complexity of life using a series of simple steps, it does quite a good job of it. If a God was GUIDING this evolution, then more questions need to be asked. Mainly, "how did the complex god guiding evolution come to be?".

Basically, i see evolution as a strong theory since it involves simple steps with cumulative effect, and throwing God into that just introduces more unexplained complexity. So personally, considering the reductionist mature of science, an idea like Theist Evolution is just as unscientific as ideas like creationism and intelligent design.

Basically, i see evolution as a strong theory since it involves simple steps with cumulative effect, and throwing God into that just introduces more unexplained complexity. So personally, considering the reductionist mature of science, an idea like Theist Evolution is just as unscientific as ideas like creationism and intelligent design.

It's true that theistic evolution isn't scientific; it's an accomodation of scientific ideas in to religion, but not a scientific theory in and of itself. In fact, it's best described as a harmonic application of religion to scientific ideas without violating the spirit of either field.

Evolution is the science, and the theistic part is the religious interpretation of that theory.

It's true that theistic evolution isn't scientific; it's an accomodation of scientific ideas in to religion, but not a scientific theory in and of itself. In fact, it's best described as a harmonic application of religion to scientific ideas without violating the spirit of either field.

Evolution is the science, and the theistic part is the religious interpretation of that theory.


Well for me it has nothing to do with religion though, since I have no religion.

It's true that theistic evolution isn't scientific; it's an accomodation of scientific ideas in to religion, but not a scientific theory in and of itself. In fact, it's best described as a harmonic application of religion to scientific ideas without violating the spirit of either field.

Evolution is the science, and the theistic part is the religious interpretation of that theory.



i totally agree, and i think it's a nice idea that there are people who are open minded enough to try and make that synthesis. I can't help but seeing it as a sort of appeasement in the perceived debate between evolutionists and creationists. No one has ever tried to find a mechanism behind Jesus' miracles, or the creation of the universe itself, and so why for something like the complexity of life? I mean i'm not saying i don't think it's a good thing that religion and science can coexist with a degree of mutualism, i'm just saying that I can't believe god had a hand to play in guiding evolution, since evolution is a random process. In fact, i find the idea of God guiding evolution harder to understand than good old fashioned creationism.

Well, I believe that God created the universe and designed its laws so that natural forces could produce beings capable of understanding him, and then allowed the laws to develop naturally

THAT, however, i can totally understand.

Well for me it has nothing to do with religion though, since I have no religion.

I use religion kind of loosely to refer to my personal spirituality as well; it's not an organized religion, but it is a religion in the sense that it's the core of my beliefs.

Basically, i see evolution as a strong theory since it involves simple steps with cumulative effect, and throwing God into that just introduces more unexplained complexity.

I think things randomly popping into existence is far more complex in fact a God of sorts is fairly scientific and with are current understanding of the universe fairly reasonable conclusion what with how it seems to be fine tuned for life

edit: though the key thing your missing is thinking that a omnipotent God would need to be logical or even comprehensible….I think what I’m saying is that nothing can be discounted in the slightest when it comes to religion

i totally agree, and i think it's a nice idea that there are people who are open minded enough to try and make that synthesis. I can't help but seeing it as a sort of appeasement in the perceived debate between evolutionists and creationists.

Appeasement? I believed in theistic evolution long before the farce of a debate between creationists and evolutionists started becoming big again, and certainly well before I had studied enough history to know it had been debated before.

I think things randomly popping into existence is far more complex in fact a God of sorts is fairly scientific and with are current understanding of the universe fairly reasonable conclusion what with how it seems to be fine tuned for life



That's exactly my point. Science is a recutionist discipline, and things as complex as animals just popping into existence doesn't fit in with that. Also, I'm not entirely sure what you mean where you say the idea of a god is fairly scientific, would you mind expanding on that a little? And don't take that wrong, i'm not being sarcastic or anything, it's just, like i said, i'm not really sure what you mean.

Appeasement? I believed in theistic evolution long before the farce of a debate between creationists and evolutionists started becoming big again, and certainly well before I had studied enough history to know it had been debated before.

It's difficult to respond to that, since i'm sure you had learned about creationism and evolution before you starting thinking about or beleiving in theistic evolution. The fact is that whether presented as conflicting ideas or not, evolution and creationsim are polar opposites and have been debated since 1859, whether in a 'big' public setting or not. Maybe appeasement is the wrong word, but it seems to me that it's a compromise and nothing more.

That's exactly my point. Science is a recutionist discipline, and things as complex as animals just popping into existence doesn't fit in with that.

you got me the wrong way round a divine creator popping into existence is allot more scientific than everything popping into existence and then reproductive RNA appearing randomly

you got me the wrong way round a divine creator popping into existence is allot more scientific than everything popping into existence and then reproductive RNA appearing randomly

scientific....

i dont think that word means what you think that word means

it might be more logical (to you) but its much more scientific to suppose that reproductive rna can appear randomly since you can test that

it might be more logical (to you) but its much more scientific to suppose that reproductive rna can appear randomly since you can test that

and we have no RNA has formed...

Actually, you've pretty much described the position of the Catholic Church, as I understand it. God created all life, by means of the laws of genetics and evolution.

Not quite. More or less: the Church allows the individual to determine their stance on evolution. Those that believe in evolution only need to believe that God gave man a soul when he arose.

More or less, from what I remember.

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

Finally someone who agrees with me on this issue! Have a cookie.

Apologies I did not mean to kill this thread.

you got me the wrong way round a divine creator popping into existence is allot more scientific than everything popping into existence and then reproductive RNA appearing randomly

Wrong ... I normally agree with you but a non falsifiable entity can in no way be more scientific then anything. It is completely out of the bounds of science

If you mean more intuitive or more reasonable that is a different argument

science uses reason and logic but it is not a synonym, Just like religion uses faith but is not a synonym

The OP makes good sense to me. This is what I believe.







'This anatomical evolution or progression does not alter or affect the statement that the development of man was always human in type and biological in progression. For the human embryo when examined microscopically is at first a mere germ or worm. Gradually as it develops it shows certain divisions; rudiments of hands and feet appear -- that is to say, an upper and a lower part are distinguishable. Afterward it undergoes certain distinct changes until it reaches its actual human form and is born into this world. But at all times, even when the embryo resembled a worm, it was human in potentiality and character, not animal. The forms assumed by the human embryo in its successive changes do not prove that it is animal in its essential character. Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing erect. Though we admit these changes, we cannot say man is an animal. In each one of these stages are signs and evidences of his human existence and destination. Proof of this lies in the fact that in the embryo man still resembles a worm. This embryo still progresses from one state to another, assuming different forms until that which was potential in it -- namely, the human image -- appears. Therefore, in the protoplasm, man is man. Conservation of species demands it.'

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 358)

Haha, you are most certainly not alone. That is pretty much the Catholic Church's point of view. Maybe the Bible thumpers could learn a thing or two from them.

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

I used to believe in theistic evolution.

Then I became an atheist so the "theistic" part kind of loses its fun.

and we have no RNA has formed...

true but we can still work at it and devise ways that might make rna "pop into existence". there are no ways we can make god pop into existence.

even if we never find a way to combine the elements of life into an actual new life its still science to be trying to do so.

I certainly believe it. I think the Qur'an describes this quite well.

theres the problem with taking it very literally.

No, there is no Problem.
Religous side:
Day 1 And god said, "Let there be Light, and there was light."

Science side: The Big Bang occured. There was Light aplenty.

Religous: "And God seperated the Light from the Darkness and called the Light Day, and the Darkness night."

Science: Over the course of a really unbelievably long time, Stars formed from nebulas Galaxies formed, The universe slowly cooled, Life was on the Philisophical horizon.

No where in the King James Version, the only Version I will acccept and read, did it say that Earth was formed that first day. the Closest I'm willing to believe, was somewhere on the second day, which would of course coincide with what Science has found.

One Day to God is longer than I really care to think about to Humans. When Jesus said he was returning Soon, he was probably referring to God's View of Time. And after all, when your a know-it-all Eternal being for which the concept of Death does not apply, you can afford to look at a few billion years as a single day.

No, there is no Problem.
Religous side:
Day 1 And god said, "Let there be Light, and there was light."

Science side: The Big Bang occured. There was Light aplenty.

Religous: "And God seperated the Light from the Darkness and called the Light Day, and the Darkness night."

Science: Over the course of a really unbelievably long time, Stars formed from nebulas Galaxies formed, The universe slowly cooled, Life was on the Philisophical horizon.

No where in the King James Version, the only Version I will acccept and read, did it say that Earth was formed that first day. the Closest I'm willing to believe, was somewhere on the second day, which would of course coincide with what Science has found.

One Day to God is longer than I really care to think about to Humans. When Jesus said he was returning Soon, he was probably referring to God's View of Time. And after all, when your a know-it-all Eternal being for which the concept of Death does not apply, you can afford to look at a few billion years as a single day.

perhaps you didnt mean literal when you said literal.

look at genesis 1,

day 1 heaven and earth, light and dark

day 2 sky

day 3 oceans and plants

day 4 sun and moon, day and night, stars

day 5 birds and sea life

day 6 animals and people

day 7 rest

if you look at it literally, its wrong.

I believe in theistic evolution. I consider myself a Christian, yet I do not take the whole Bible literally - far from it, in fact.

perhaps you didnt mean literal when you said literal.

look at genesis 1,

day 1 heaven and earth, light and dark

day 2 sky

day 3 oceans and plants

day 4 sun and moon, day and night, stars

day 5 birds and sea life

day 6 animals and people

day 7 rest

if you look at it literally, its wrong.

Its hard for me to state what I truely believe without sounding Trollish or Flamebaitish.

Let me leave it at I take the Entire Bible literally, without taking the entire Bible literally.

It sounds impossible and conflicting I know, but if I say it any other way, I feel like I'm using my Faith to Troll, and I just don't wanna go there.

And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible

that's not even remotely true

that's not even remotely true

I agree.

No, there is no Problem.
Religous side:
Day 1 And god said, "Let there be Light, and there was light."

Science side: The Big Bang occured. There was Light aplenty.

Religous: "And God seperated the Light from the Darkness and called the Light Day, and the Darkness night."

Science: Over the course of a really unbelievably long time, Stars formed from nebulas Galaxies formed, The universe slowly cooled, Life was on the Philisophical horizon.

No where in the King James Version, the only Version I will acccept and read, did it say that Earth was formed that first day. the Closest I'm willing to believe, was somewhere on the second day, which would of course coincide with what Science has found.

One Day to God is longer than I really care to think about to Humans. When Jesus said he was returning Soon, he was probably referring to God's View of Time. And after all, when your a know-it-all Eternal being for which the concept of Death does not apply, you can afford to look at a few billion years as a single day.
And yet even the King James version switches around the order on ya for creation

Its hard for me to state what I truely believe without sounding Trollish or Flamebaitish.

Let me leave it at I take the Entire Bible literally, without taking the entire Bible literally.

It sounds impossible and conflicting I know, but if I say it any other way, I feel like I'm using my Faith to Troll, and I just don't wanna go there.

There are no two ways about it

You either do or do not ...

Simple as that

Its hard for me to state what I truely believe without sounding Trollish or Flamebaitish.

Let me leave it at I take the Entire Bible literally, without taking the entire Bible literally.

It sounds impossible and conflicting I know, but if I say it any other way, I feel like I'm using my Faith to Troll, and I just don't wanna go there.

i had mistaken you for the OP who had expressed the idea that if you just lengthen out the time frame there is no conflict between evolution and genesis. that is obviously not true. you choose to believe genesis. thats your business

i AM curious as to why you would choose the king james translation as if it were somehow commissioned by god instead of a king of england who mandated certain politically inspired translations.

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

"God" doesn't make sense, not by any reasonable definition of sense, assuming you're using "God" in the generally accepted manner--a personal deity who is involved in and cares about the everyday lives of human beings. Now, if you're going to define God as the unconscious power in the universe that binds everything together, then maybe it makes sense, but if you do that, you've defined all the meaningfulness out of the term "God."

i had mistaken you for the OP who had expressed the idea that if you just lengthen out the time frame there is no conflict between evolution and genesis. that is obviously not true. you choose to believe genesis. thats your business

i AM curious as to why you would choose the king james translation as if it were somehow commissioned by god instead of a king of england who mandated certain politically inspired translations.

Why, well, I have tried reading other versions. I've read them, and it feels like I'm reading an obvious lie. I've even noticed inconsistanciys and things missing from varying versions.

I read the KJV, the original KJV, not the NKJV, and it feels like I'm reading the complete honest truth. Its also the easiest version to read, even with the archaich english.

There are no two ways about it

You either do or do not ...

Simple as that

engaging in logical contradictions is my right as a man!

Why, well, I have tried reading other versions. I've read them, and it feels like I'm reading an obvious lie.
...
I read the KJV, the original KJV, not the NKJV, and it feels like I'm reading the complete honest truth.

greatest methodology ever

Why, well, I have tried reading other versions. I've read them, and it feels like I'm reading an obvious lie. I've even noticed inconsistanciys and things missing from varying versions.

I read the KJV, the original KJV, not the NKJV, and it feels like I'm reading the complete honest truth. Its also the easiest version to read, even with the archaich english.

Ahhh so its not about the accuracy of the translation rather the "Feel" of it?

Ahhh so its not about the accuracy of the translation rather the "Feel" of it?

Oh no, I also have links to places that point out the diffrences inbetween the bibles, should you care to go read it.

It really helped cement my choice in version.

Or, not, I can just leave it unlinked.

Oh no, I also have links to places that point out the diffrences inbetween the bibles, should you care to go read it.

It really helped cement my choice in version.

Or, not, I can just leave it unlinked.

I have no doubt that you can point out the differences, but it does not necessarily follow that the KJV is the most accurate. All it means is that there are differences between them. There's a reason that an advanced degree in translation is a Fine Arts degree, like Creative Writing, and not a science degree, after all.

Oh no, I also have links to places that point out the diffrences inbetween the bibles, should you care to go read it.

It really helped cement my choice in version.

Or, not, I can just leave it unlinked.

Probably have read it ... but feel free I am always up for more info.

I have no doubt that you can point out the differences, but it does not necessarily follow that the KJV is the most accurate. All it means is that there are differences between them. There's a reason that an advanced degree in translation is a Fine Arts degree, like Creative Writing, and not a science degree, after all.

That could very well be its own topic in General, and should I ever find one that goes on about the diffrences in bibles, I promise you I will go on and on about it.

Really, all I have to do is wait for RC, he'll inevitably post it sooner or later based on his posting trends.

I have no doubt that you can point out the differences, but it does not necessarily follow that the KJV is the most accurate. All it means is that there are differences between them. There's a reason that an advanced degree in translation is a Fine Arts degree, like Creative Writing, and not a science degree, after all.

The authorized king james has to be the most accurate; because it is the word of god and it says so.

Case closed.

The authorized king james has to be the most accurate; because it is the word of god and it says so.

Case closed.

Indeed.
Oh, and I just found a note on my desk.

Dear Pirated Corsairs,
This is God. I'd just like to let you know that everybody who does not give you five thousand US dollars goes to Hell.
Signed,
God.

P.S. This is God.

You all better pay up!

correct me if i'm wrong, but surely the most accurate version of the bible is one that isn't tranlslated? i.e. the original hebrew old testament and the various coptic gospels and letters?

"God" doesn't make sense, not by any reasonable definition of sense, assuming you're using "God" in the generally accepted manner--a personal deity who is involved in and cares about the everyday lives of human beings. Now, if you're going to define God as the unconscious power in the universe that binds everything together, then maybe it makes sense, but if you do that, you've defined all the meaningfulness out of the term "God."


Heh how strange that one little word can be twisted and turned to mean almost anything, or to justify almost anything huh!

God, the most common usage of the word I come across is not how you say it, a personal diety, nope but the one, the all the rulerer and maker of the universe, the suppreame power, goal and source, now that is what I think whenever somebody uses the word God.

In this manor you'll note, God makes perfect sense.

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?.

In all honesty? It's Utter Fucking Rubbish. Have a nice day!

Clearly, as this was my 666th post, it is also the WORK OF SATAN; ahahahahahaaaa...!

In all honesty? It's Utter Fucking Rubbish. Have a nice day!

Clearly, as this was my 666th post, it is also the WORK OF SATAN; ahahahahahaaaa...!

Heheh a friend of mine called me up all in a state once a few yeara ago. He was real excited becuase he had just taken dilivery of that book, you know the one, it goes by the title of 'The Necronomican' His excitment was due to the guff in the letter he had recived with the book, telling how only 1000 copies where ever published etc, and there in blood red ink, on the very first page was printed Copy no: 666.

which he thought was great until I had him over to mine house and showed him my copy of the same book, a few years oldrthen his too, and guess what copy I had recived? Yep 666. Muuuuuhahhahhhahhhahhha;)

Thats not theistic evolution ... thats old earth creationism if you believe the biblical order

Theistic evolution I could understand not the bible tale

Earth created before light

In fact Plants created before Light (Cause we know plants don't need light :rolleyes: why would you make something before the other thing it was dependent on ... god ain't a very good engineer)

Though which of the genisis stories are you believing in ? they are different as far as order of creation goes

Not sure if I am reading this right...

But...

Black Steamers...deep ocean vents that release super hot water and tasty minerals...that support plant and animal life.

Not sure if I am reading this right...

But...

Black Steamers...deep ocean vents that release super hot water and tasty minerals...that support plant and animal life.

they support animal life, but not plant life. Plants, by definition, are land based (with some moving back into the water secondarily, like the water lily), and photosynthetic.

Having said that, there existed a lot of animal life millions of years before the evolution of plants. Back then photosynthetic bacterias, algae and other microorganisms (protists for example) formed the base of food chains.

I don't see how it makes sense to believe that biological evolution is guided by the invisible hand of a divine being when it can easily be explained as a purely naturalistic process.

I don't see how it makes sense to believe that biological evolution is guided by the invisible hand of a divine being when it can easily be explained as a purely naturalistic process.


Heh yeah I don't see how the dislike for somebody based on just the colour of their skin makse any sense, yet I still understand that clearly for some people it does.

Heh yeah I don't see how the dislike for somebody based on just the colour of their skin makse any sense, yet I still understand that clearly for some people it does.

that's totally different. Evolution describes the natural world, which works based on logic and reason. Racism is a product of human behaviour, something which in itself is a product of intelligence and consciousness, and is irrational and illogical. The two can't be compared.

that's totally different. Evolution describes the natural world, which works based on logic and reason. Racism is a product of human behaviour, something which in itself is a product of intelligence and consciousness, and is irrational and illogical. The two can't be compared.


That is not what I was doing. I was comparing one belife with another, and as all belifes are very much a human think then I can infact compare them.

You said it makes no sense to belive, I countred with exaclty the same words. The point I was trying to get acrross was just because we fail to makes sense of a belife it does not mean that the belife has no vaule, or is not valid.

they support animal life, but not plant life. Plants, by definition, are land based (with some moving back into the water secondarily, like the water lily), and photosynthetic.

Having said that, there existed a lot of animal life millions of years before the evolution of plants. Back then photosynthetic bacterias, algae and other microorganisms (protists for example) formed the base of food chains.

Are you seriously saying that there is no plant life in our oceans??

Re the life around the steamers...it seems to be exclusively animal so I was wrong in that. However one thing that does surprise me is that these steamers are not long lived...lasting only a few years...not long to get a ecosystem going!

Man, i know. Those steamers are incredible. One opens up, an ecosystem forms in STUPIDLY short space of time, then it closes back up. Such a mystery... The base of those ecosystems is bacteria that use hydrogen sulphide as a primary metabolite. Super interesting really. Same for the ecosystems that whale carcasses create. Over the time it takes for a dead whale to sink, decompose, and finally vanish, 4 or 5 distinct ecosystems form around it's carcass. It's mind blowing.

And yeah, apart from the odd thing like seagrass and marine lillies, the oceans are pretty devoid of plant life. Seaweeds are algae, photosynthetic planktons are also algae, and although it can be argued that algae are, in fact, plants, it's a fairly grey area, even now. Regardless of whether they are plants of not, traditional plants, that is mosses and liverworts and everything radiating out from there (the embryophytes, both bryophytes and tracheophytes) evolved a LONG time after animal life.

Hi, I'm new in this and I haven't read the full topic but I have to tell you , especially to those people who belive in god creation and evolution guided by god:
First of it ¿wich god??, I see hear you are mostly cristians,but realice that there are hundreds of religions with thousands of god; each of that religion has an explanation; why do you follow this one??
Some talked very proudly about the gennesis and how the evolution was according to it; wait wait; It was written after the evolucion!; I mean, God didn't make us at his own imagen, the truth is that you (or the people who writted it) imagine god at your own image; because it the human mind, the one that said, there is a god and it put me hear.

GOD IT'S JUST THE EASIEST ASNWER TO THE QUESTIONS WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, this is what I believe

Hi, I'm new in this and I haven't read the full topic but I have to tell you , especially to those people who belive in god creation and evolution guided by god:
First of it ¿wich god??, I see hear you are mostly cristians,but realice that there are hundreds of religions with thousands of god; each of that religion has an explanation; why do you follow this one??
Some talked very proudly about the gennesis and how the evolution was according to it; wait wait; It was written after the evolucion!; I mean, God didn't make us at his own imagen, the truth is that you (or the people who writted it) imagine god at your own image; because it the human mind, the one that said, there is a god and it put me hear.

GOD IT'S JUST THE EASIEST ASNWER TO THE QUESTIONS WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, this is what I believe

Well I can tell that this is both your first post and that you didn't check out the tread but just leapt right on in. How you ask?

COZ OF THE SHOUTING!;)

Still I'm on your side, so speak up people which God if you are a God botherer, and which concept of God are your railing against if your Atheist?

Man, i know. Those steamers are incredible. One opens up, an ecosystem forms in STUPIDLY short space of time, then it closes back up. Such a mystery... The base of those ecosystems is bacteria that use hydrogen sulphide as a primary metabolite. Super interesting really. Same for the ecosystems that whale carcasses create. Over the time it takes for a dead whale to sink, decompose, and finally vanish, 4 or 5 distinct ecosystems form around it's carcass. It's mind blowing.

And yeah, apart from the odd thing like seagrass and marine lillies, the oceans are pretty devoid of plant life. Seaweeds are algae, photosynthetic planktons are also algae, and although it can be argued that algae are, in fact, plants, it's a fairly grey area, even now. Regardless of whether they are plants of not, traditional plants, that is mosses and liverworts and everything radiating out from there (the embryophytes, both bryophytes and tracheophytes) evolved a LONG time after animal life.

Yeah they are amazing...and further proof that life can exist in some of the most unexpected places. Totally mind blowing.

As for the plants thing...so there are plants that exist in the oceans ;)

Indeed.
Oh, and I just found a note on my desk.



You all better pay up!

the check is in the mail!

Yeah they are amazing...and further proof that life can exist in some of the most unexpected places. Totally mind blowing.

As for the plants thing...so there are plants that exist in the oceans ;)

yeah there are plants and animals in the ocean. even those odd things that grow in steam vents. thats not what genesis is talking about eh?


9 Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.
10 God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was.
11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened:
12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.
13 Evening came, and morning followed--the third day.
14 Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years,
15 and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened:
16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars.
17 God set them in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was.
19 Evening came, and morning followed--the fourth day.


day 3 dry land and all kinds of plants there on

day 4 sun, moon, stars, day and night.

Well I can tell that this is both your first post and that you didn't check out the tread but just leapt right on in. How you ask?

COZ OF THE SHOUTING!;)

Still I'm on your side, so speak up people which God if you are a God botherer, and which concept of God are your railing against if your Atheist?


all concepts of god. The concept of something that has no explanation is what i have a problem with. I can't accept an answer to my questions that only raises more questions. What i find attractve about darwinian evolution is that it is a process that works in simple steps, and DOESN'T require guidance, the elegance and beauty of the genetic code and it's products, shaped by essentially random processes blows my mind, yet doesn't need further complexity to explain.

Theistic evolution, to me, seems to imply a willingness to accept current scientific thinking to a point, and then leave a god to explain everything else, "God of the gaps".

all concepts of god. The concept of something that has no explanation is what i have a problem with. I can't accept an answer to my questions that only raises more questions. What i find attractve about darwinian evolution is that it is a process that works in simple steps, and DOESN'T require guidance, the elegance and beauty of the genetic code and it's products, shaped by essentially random processes blows my mind, yet doesn't need further complexity to explain.

Theistic evolution, to me, seems to imply a willingness to accept current scientific thinking to a point, and then leave a god to explain everything else, "God of the gaps".

Are you sure that what you say though is true? I mean you always have an answer that does not raise more questions? That is the things you belive in you know all there is to know, or at least are happy with what you do know that no other questions need be asked?

Why, well, I have tried reading other versions. I've read them, and it feels like I'm reading an obvious lie. I've even noticed inconsistanciys and things missing from varying versions.

I read the KJV, the original KJV, not the NKJV, and it feels like I'm reading the complete honest truth. Its also the easiest version to read, even with the archaich english.

yeah i know what you mean. the language of the king james is beautiful. its also inaccurate in many places both because of errors and politics at the time but also because the common meaning of words has shifted since the time the translation was done.

if you are set on a literal and inerrant interpretation of the bible, you should keep track of the differences (as you said you do) and follow the better translation (which you didnt say you do). the KJV cant be inerrant unless you think that god inspired the translators hired by the english king back in 1611 and none other before or since.

there is a very interesting book out about the translating of the king james bible. its not a relgious book but a history of the times. i enjoyed it very much. its call "god's secretaries:the making of the kind james bible" by adam nicholson. its probably in your local library.

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060185163

Are you seriously saying that there is no plant life in our oceans??

Re the life around the steamers...it seems to be exclusively animal so I was wrong in that. However one thing that does surprise me is that these steamers are not long lived...lasting only a few years...not long to get a ecosystem going!

But if I remember the quote

""Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.""

EVERY kind of plant

Sure there is plant life in the ocean but last time I saw there was no apple tree's and they apparently were created before land...

Genesis is a load of rubbish. Just an amalgamated version of other work, all written by humans within the realm of human knowledge and thus I don't believe it should be used as the basis for anyone's religious beliefs.

But if I remember the quote

""Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.""

EVERY kind of plant

Sure there is plant life in the ocean but last time I saw there was no apple tree's and they apparently were created before land...

Yeah...it makes sense to me now.

I also mistakingly thought that there was plant life around this hydrothermal vents...it was only animal...

Thats why I was wondering about the light thing...

But now I wonder about something else...how can a plant exist without anything for it to root to?

This is what you are talking about?

I've suddenly confused myself again I think! LOL

No, I don't believe in it. Personally, it's a load of bullshit created by Theists trying to justify their dinosaur of a belief system. The very existence of a deity complicates the universe, and using Occam's razor, the concept should be "cut away."

You think that the Big Bang necessarily makes a god necessary not true? Scientists have made matter from a vacuum before - it's possible, thanks to quantum foam, which creats virtual particles. Under the right circumstances, these particles form into real matter - there's your big bang.

TE is junk.

No, I don't believe in it. Personally, it's a load of bullshit created by Theists trying to justify their dinosaur of a belief system. The very existence of a deity complicates the universe, and using Occam's razor, the concept should be "cut away."

You think that the Big Bang necessarily makes a god necessary not true? Scientists have made matter from a vacuum before - it's possible, thanks to quantum foam, which creats virtual particles. Under the right circumstances, these particles form into real matter - there's your big bang.

TE is junk.

Although not an expert nor a scientist I do try to keep up with things...

Quantum foam? virtual particles??

Please if you could do some linkage I'd appreciate it!

Yeah...it makes sense to me now.

I also mistakingly thought that there was plant life around this hydrothermal vents...it was only animal...

Thats why I was wondering about the light thing...

But now I wonder about something else...how can a plant exist without anything for it to root to?

This is what you are talking about?

I've suddenly confused myself again I think! LOL

Its all "Theoretically" possible ... assuming that we see things outside of anything we consider "Natural" or the intervention of an all powerful being

Just seems to be a rather stupid thing to do

No, I don't believe in it. Personally, it's a load of bullshit created by Theists trying to justify their dinosaur of a belief system. The very existence of a deity complicates the universe, and using Occam's razor, the concept should be "cut away."

You think that the Big Bang necessarily makes a god necessary not true? Scientists have made matter from a vacuum before - it's possible, thanks to quantum foam, which creats virtual particles. Under the right circumstances, these particles form into real matter - there's your big bang.

TE is junk.

so scientists were able to make something out of something........what about something out of nothing? it's impossible.

No, I don't believe in it. Personally, it's a load of bullshit created by Theists trying to justify their dinosaur of a belief system. The very existence of a deity complicates the universe, and using Occam's razor, the concept should be "cut away."

You think that the Big Bang necessarily makes a god necessary not true? Scientists have made matter from a vacuum before - it's possible, thanks to quantum foam, which creats virtual particles. Under the right circumstances, these particles form into real matter - there's your big bang.

TE is junk.


Although in your summery I quite agreeTE is junk, I just don't understand this Ochams razor? Let me explain.

You say that using the ochams razor principle, then belife in God can be cut out?

Nope that don't work and heres why, it is emernently easiy to say 'God did it' than it is to explain just how and why God did not do it. Sooooo really if where are talking ochams razor, 'God did it' has to be the trump card huh!;)

so scientists were able to make something out of something........what about something out of nothing? it's impossible.

Yet a deity somehow always existing is more possible?

Although not an expert nor a scientist I do try to keep up with things...

Quantum foam? virtual particles??

Please if you could do some linkage I'd appreciate it!


Quantum theory has indeed posited the idea that virtualy any thing can pop into and out of existance at any time, this though as they say is not impossible but it is improbbable. How and why this theory exist well, I'll admit I don't know.

Its all "Theoretically" possible ... assuming that we see things outside of anything we consider "Natural" or the intervention of an all powerful being

Just seems to be a rather stupid thing to do

Its good to know that humans don't have a monopoly on stupid! ;)

Although in your summery I quite agreeTE is junk, I just don't understand this Ochams razor? Let me explain.

You say that using the ochams razor principle, then belife in God can be cut out?

Nope that don't work and heres why, it is emernently easiy to say 'God did it' than it is to explain just how and why God did not do it. Sooooo really if where are talking ochams razor, 'God did it' has to be the trump card huh!;)

No, because then you have to explain everything about God: where he come from, how he does things, etc., which is inherently more complicated than, say, natural selection or quantum foam.

Although in your summery I quite agreeTE is junk, I just don't understand this Ochams razor? Let me explain.

You say that using the ochams razor principle, then belife in God can be cut out?

Nope that don't work and heres why, it is emernently easiy to say 'God did it' than it is to explain just how and why God did not do it. Sooooo really if where are talking ochams razor, 'God did it' has to be the trump card huh!;)

No "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

That does not mean the SIMPLEST explanation wins that means the SIMPLEST explanation NEEDED wins.

There is a difference

Quantum theory has indeed posited the idea that virtualy any thing can pop into and out of existance at any time, this though as they say is not impossible but it is improbbable. How and why this theory exist well, I'll admit I don't know.

It's something from quantum mechanics, which is way beyond my understanding...I'm not a science person :p

Yet a deity somehow always existing is more possible?

of course not.

it can not be tested.

my point is that someone saying "oh, well, scientists can create crap out of crap proves God doesn't exist" is idiotic.

Quantum theory has indeed posited the idea that virtualy any thing can pop into and out of existance at any time, this though as they say is not impossible but it is improbbable. How and why this theory exist well, I'll admit I don't know.

No no....its not that...its this quantum foam stuff and virtual particles...never heard of them before....thats all.

Regarding existance...well it might not exist in our reference but that does not mean it cannot exist in another 'universe'...

of course not.

it can not be tested.

my point is that someone saying "oh, well, scientists can create crap out of crap proves God doesn't exist" is idiotic.What it does do, however, is show that there's less of a necessity for an outside designer than was previously believed.

When scientists have proved that matter can be created out of nothing in a scientific manner, it shows that there is no reason for God to exist. Using all the rational, accepted scientific methods of thinking, God most probably does not exist.

Yet a deity somehow always existing is more possible?

Heh I also love the logic in this one aswell.

So if you don't belive in God then you are left with the Big Bang, or perhaps the Big Crunch, or String Theory or Brane Theory, or any amalgamation of the afore mentioned.

All of which posit at some time or other that matter/energy has crunched back into itself before exploding out agian and creating a new universe, or craxhed into anoother X dimensioned brane, thus destroying and recreating, or whatever.

And that is fine, we can all somehow get our heads around that. Yet just suggest that if we replace that idea with the idea of an everpresent God creating matter/energy from itself, people get all confused about it?

Quantum theory has indeed posited the idea that virtualy any thing can pop into and out of existance at any time, this though as they say is not impossible but it is improbbable. How and why this theory exist well, I'll admit I don't know.

but it doesn't pop into existence from nothing......

Yeah, because you have to explain every single detail about how this "God" fellow works. Where did he come from? How does he work? et cetera...which is inherently more complicated than the Big Bang (scientifically proven) and evolution (scientific fact).

What it does do, however, is show that there's less of a necessity for an outside designer than was previously believed.
not really.
When scientists have proved that matter can be created out of nothing in a scientific manner, it shows that there is no reason for God to exist. Using all the rational, accepted scientific methods of thinking, God most probably does not exist.
you are going to have to link to something that will explain to little ole me how the scientists got their hands on nothing.......

No, because then you have to explain everything about God: where he come from, how he does things, etc., which is inherently more complicated than, say, natural selection or quantum foam.


Not at all, watch this, are you watching?


God is everything and has always been.

Did you see how easy that was, now when ever anybody asks you for any detailed anylasis just repeat. :D

Heh I also love the logic in this one aswell.

So if you don't belive in God then you are left with the Big Bang, or perhaps the Big Crunch, or String Theory or Brane Theory, or any amalgamation of the afore mentioned.

All of which posit at some time or other that matter/energy has crunched back into itself before exploding out agian and creating a new universe, or craxhed into anoother X dimensioned brane, thus destroying and recreating, or whatever.

And that is fine, we can all somehow get our heads around that. Yet just suggest that if we replace that idea with the idea of an everpresent God creating matter/energy from itself, people get all confused about it?

Who is confused?

I just think it is silly to create an all inclusive rule (Everything must have a creator) then make an massive unfounded exception to it (except god)

When scientists have proved that matter can be created out of nothing in a scientific manner, it shows that there is no reason for God to exist. Using all the rational, accepted scientific methods of thinking, God most probably does not exist.



Heheh and it has been proved that wimmin don't need men to make babies, yet by your logic we men must not exist, then who may I ask is typing this?

We also have toasters which means by your logic, that there is no reason for putting your bread under the grill to toast, yet it still goes on?

Say is your logic flawed;)

Are you sure that what you say though is true? I mean you always have an answer that does not raise more questions? That is the things you belive in you know all there is to know, or at least are happy with what you do know that no other questions need be asked?


I'm not saying i don't need to ask more questions, but what i AM saying is that i believe in what i can understand, and i also believe that given enough time everything can be understood. To me the concept of a god is nothing more than a deus ex, an scientific get out of jail free card. It isn't so much the concept of a god that i can't accept, but the fact that it is presented as a fact that we are just meant to accept, not question. When you ask "how did god get there?" the answer you're given is "he's always been there" and to me that's the same as someone saying "just because" or "he just is". For me, that isn't something i can be comfortable with.

I'm certainly not happy with what i know, if i was, my life and direction would be very different, but i'm also not happy with just accepting that the cause of something is beyond understanding. I'm not happy to accept that the unexplained or unexplainable is chalked up to a deity.


and as an addition, i think what Brisith Londinium was trying to say is once the universe can be explained rationally and empirically, the idea of a God loses meaning. That is assuming that the entire concept was conceived in order to try and make sense of an infinatly complex and seemingly unexplainable universe. rather than a toast/grill example perhaps think of a maths text book. Once one fully understands basic addition, the textbook doesn't get read again.

Heheh and it has been proved that wimmin don't need men to make babies

it has? do you mean nuclear transplantation? or haploid reproduction? something like that?

you are going to have to link to something that will explain to little ole me how the scientists got their hands on nothing.......
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, Smunkeeville. The beginning basis of any discussion on the existence of God must logically be the null set--that there is nothing until something is proven. Until there's some proof that God(s) exist, then there's no reason to believe in him/her/it/them.

Who is confused?

I just think it is silly to create an all inclusive rule (Everything must have a creator) then make an massive unfounded exception to it (except god)

Yet you don't think it silly to belife that the universe in some way has just alawys been? As for the rule, I always thought that was a rule of scientific fact? Do you say it is not, that in fact us theist are responsible for it?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, Smunkeeville. The beginning basis of any discussion on the existence of God must logically be the null set--that there is nothing until something is proven. Until there's some proof that God(s) exist, then there's no reason to believe in him/her/it/them.

I am merely asking for a source, even if the burden of proof were on me (which it is not since I am not trying to argue anything here, just asking questions) I am allowed to ask for a source when someone starts using words such as "fact".

Yet you don't think it silly to belife that the universe in some way has just alawys been? As for the rule, I always thought that was a rule of scientific fact? Do you say it is not, that in fact us theist are responsible for it?

I find it less of a leap of faith yes and the less faith involved and more reliance on data the better.

At some point it comes to faith sure but I like to limit how far I leap with mine.

And "Scientific fact"? Even "Scientific facts" are but theories that have yet to be dis-proven.

Heheh and it has been proved that wimmin don't need men to make babies, yet by your logic we men must not exist, then who may I ask is typing this?

We also have toasters which means by your logic, that there is no reason for putting your bread under the grill to toast, yet it still goes on?

Say is your logic flawed;)

Say what? That makes no sense. Yeah, women might not need men to reproduce, but obviously there is some need for men, or we would not exist under natural selections. Yes, we have toasters, but I don't see where your going with that...

Occam's razor dictates that the simplest theory is most likely the correct one, and God is certainly not simple compared to the Big Bang and evolution.

Heheh and it has been proved that wimmin don't need men to make babies, yet by your logic we men must not exist, then who may I ask is typing this?

We also have toasters which means by your logic, that there is no reason for putting your bread under the grill to toast, yet it still goes on?

Say is your logic flawed;)

he didnt SAY that god doesnt exist, he said that god MOST PROBABLY doesnt exist. see the difference?

if you have a piece of toast in your hand it MOST PROBABLY came out of the toaster, but there is a possibility that you toasted it under your broiler.

I'm not saying i don't need to ask more questions, but what i AM saying is that i believe in what i can understand, and i also believe that given enough time everything can be understood. To me the concept of a god is nothing more than a deus ex, an scientific get out of jail free card.

Yet you have no proof for this belife? So how then do you attach more value to it than the belife that there is a God? What rational judgment do you use, by what methoed have you found this truth, and more importantly by what methoed have yo verivied it?



It isn't so much the concept of a god that i can't accept, but the fact that it is presented as a fact that we are just meant to accept, not question. When you ask "how did god get there?" the answer you're given is "he's always been there" and to me that's the same as someone saying "just because" or "he just is". For me, that isn't something i can be comfortable with.


Ahhhh I'm with you. Then I can accept that, for the record anybody that tells you this is the real truth just accept it, you should automaticly question. Heheh and thats the real truth! ;)



I'm certainly not happy with what i know, if i was, my life and direction would be very different, but i'm also not happy with just accepting that the cause of something is beyond understanding. I'm not happy to accept that the unexplained or unexplainable is chalked up to a deity.

Then I think you are going to be unhappy for a very long time. There are many things that you on a personal level and us on a speciec level will never know. Accept that and accept also that truth, is dependant on who is talking about it. My point then is what makes your truth any more valid than mine?

but it doesn't pop into existence from nothing......


Then we must be talking about two differtant things smunkee!

I am talking about the quantum theory that says any matter/energy can pop into and out of existance in a vaccum, at any time, but the probability of this happening are sooooo small that it is likely nobody will ever witness it.

What are you talking about?

When scientists have proved that matter can be created out of nothing in a scientific manner, it shows that there is no reason for God to exist. Using all the rational, accepted scientific methods of thinking, God most probably does not exist.


Actualy I read just a few weeks back that using some sort of probibiltiy maths, German scientist have found that the probblity for Gods existance is far greater than the probabilty that God does not exist.

and as an addition, i think what Brisith Londinium was trying to say is once the universe can be explained rationally and empirically, the idea of a God loses meaning. That is assuming that the entire concept was conceived in order to try and make sense of an infinatly complex and seemingly unexplainable universe. rather than a toast/grill example perhaps think of a maths text book. Once one fully understands basic addition, the textbook doesn't get read again.


Ahhh then that I understand, yet I belive the other way around, I belive that once we get to the root of the creation of the universe then we will practily see God. As to the maths text book, shit man we all need to recover stuff sometimes, it would be foolish to think you know all of the knoweldge contian within the book and chuck it away. More prudent to keep it safe somewhere against the day your brain starts to go huh!



it has? do you mean nuclear transplantation? or haploid reproduction? something like that?

No I mean that it is now possible to create sperm cells from stem cells.

Then we must be talking about two differtant things smunkee!

I am talking about the quantum theory that says any matter/energy can pop into and out of existance in a vaccum, at any time, but the probability of this happening are sooooo small that it is likely nobody will ever witness it.

What are you talking about?

sorry, I screwed up when stating my position.

I was thinking about time travel and quantum physics and string theory and my grocery list all at once.

nevermind. haha.

I find it less of a leap of faith yes and the less faith involved and more reliance on data the better.

At some point it comes to faith sure but I like to limit how far I leap with mine.

And "Scientific fact"? Even "Scientific facts" are but theories that have yet to be dis-proven.



Ahhhh Then again I can agree with that. So you'd happily admit that it is just a question of how much faith any indvidual is willing to play with?

Say what? That makes no sense. Yeah, women might not need men to reproduce, but obviously there is some need for men, or we would not exist under natural selections. Yes, we have toasters, but I don't see where your going with that...

Occam's razor dictates that the simplest theory is most likely the correct one, and God is certainly not simple compared to the Big Bang and evolution.



*sigh* I'll say it again then.

God is all, is everything and has always been.

That above is all that you need know about God, it explains any question about God that you will ever have.

Please quote me a more simplisitc view of evolution?

sorry, I screwed up when stating my position.

I was thinking about time travel and quantum physics and string theory and my grocery list all at once.

nevermind. haha.

Hehehh yeah it's always the mundane thoughts that get ya!

Yet you have no proof for this belife? So how then do you attach more value to it than the belife that there is a God? What rational judgment do you use, by what methoed have you found this truth, and more importantly by what methoed have yo verivied it?

I attatch more value to it because of the way i think. I'm more inclined toward reductionist thought that holistic thought. In fact, this entire thread could be reinterpreted as a reductionist vs. holist discussion. Both sets of maxims are, by definition, merely ideas and so difficult if not impossible to prove. That doesnt mean, however, that the results of reductionist thought cannot be proven. Or that the results of holistic thought can't be proven. I assume you're playing devil's advocate here, since i could just as easily ask what rational tools you have used to verify your belief in a supernatural god. There is, really, no way to prove either way. The grounds of my assumption are that reductionist science has revealed many truths about the natural world, and i have yet to see anything that suggests to me that there are things that cannot be explained in simple, rational and empirical terms. On the other hand, i cannot see any prior revelation or truth that has been revealed and proven by assuming pre-existing and omniscient intelligence or complexity.


Then I think you are going to be unhappy for a very long time. There are many things that you on a personal level and us on a speciec level will never know. Accept that and accept also that truth, is dependant on who is talking about it. My point then is what makes your truth any more valid than mine?

It would be arrogant, not to mention unrealistic of me, to believe that i could understand everything. It would also be silly of me to base my entire life on the pursuit of knowledge. I am not going to be unhappy because i don't understand everything, but that doesn't mean i am not going to try. Are you trying to tell me i'm wasting my time, and probably money, on a PhD? Since i will never know everything, what is the point of trying?

I'm not saying that my truth is more valid than yours. But then again i think i'm a little confused as to what you are talking about when you say truth. So you believe in a god, and i don't. I didn't ever say that my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, are more or less valid than yours. I am just trying to give a rationale behind my atheism, rather than just sticking up a post saying i don't believe in god, but do believe in evolution and leaving it at that.

The big difference is that you have faith to believe something unprovable, and i do not.

God is all, is everything and has always been.

That above is all that you need know about God, it explains any question about God that you will ever have.

Please quote me a more simplisitc view of evolution?

that quote illustrates this nicely. There is no evidence that god is all, god is everything, or god has always been. Equally, there is no evidence that what you say is NOT true. The fact that you are willing to base your life around an uncertainty is a testament to your faith, something which i respect. Personally, i am not comfortable with uncertainty, and i don't have such a high level of faith.

AND, evolution isn't simple, but it works in simple steps. Mutations, one base for another, are simple. Evolutionary processes, however, are not. That isn't to say that god is simple either. Just that a series of simple steps is easier for me to understand than an extremely complex form of intelligence guiding what is, essentially, a random, albeit stocahstic, process.

*sigh* I'll say it again then.

God is all, is everything and has always been.

That above is all that you need know about God, it explains any question about God that you will ever have.

Please quote me a more simplisitc view of evolution?

Simplistic is the perfect word to describe your point of view. It's also painfully uncurious.

Simplistic is the perfect word to describe your point of view. It's also painfully uncurious.

And dangerous.

I attatch more value to it because of the way i think. I'm more inclined toward reductionist thought that holistic thought. In fact, this entire thread could be reinterpreted as a reductionist vs. holist discussion. Both sets of maxims are, by definition, merely ideas and so difficult if not impossible to prove. That doesnt mean, however, that the results of reductionist thought cannot be proven. Or that the results of holistic thought can't be proven. I assume you're playing devil's advocate here, since i could just as easily ask what rational tools you have used to verify your belief in a supernatural god. There is, really, no way to prove either way. The grounds of my assumption are that reductionist science has revealed many truths about the natural world, and i have yet to see anything that suggests to me that there are things that cannot be explained in simple, rational and empirical terms. On the other hand, i cannot see any prior revelation or truth that has been revealed and proven by assuming pre-existing and omniscient intelligence or complexity.

I am happy that you have said it is down to the way you think, as this is also true of me, and I suspect for everybody.

You assume wrong, my words and my posts stem more from people constantly letting me know how wrong my mode of thought is. To get through this I employ a process of finding out just how much of their personal belife is backed up by objectivly veriyible data, and how much pure subjective belife.

I find that it is always the latter that holds sway and so I find myself asking how then can we distinguish between the idea that is true and the idea that is false(as if he belives opposite to me then surley one must be?), and I often find that we can't, which in turn leads me to the conclusion that your belife system is just as valid as mine, and so by stateing any way that a system of belife, or a mode of thought is in some way supperior to another without explaining how this is so, people do themselves and others a great miservice.


It would be arrogant, not to mention unrealistic of me, to believe that i could understand everything. It would also be silly of me to base my entire life on the pursuit of knowledge. I am not going to be unhappy because i don't understand everything, but that doesn't mean i am not going to try. Are you trying to tell me i'm wasting my time, and probably money, on a PhD? Since i will never know everything, what is the point of trying?

That is not what I said, but neither is it what you said. Initionaly you said that you are not happy not knowing. You said that this was a big reason for your belief system. I merely pointed out then that if that is what you really think, you are going to be unhappy for a long time.


I'm not saying that my truth is more valid than yours. But then again i think i'm a little confused as to what you are talking about when you say truth. So you believe in a god, and i don't. I didn't ever say that my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, are more or less valid than yours. I am just trying to give a rationale behind my atheism, rather than just sticking up a post saying i don't believe in god, but do believe in evolution and leaving it at that.

But you do think that I'm wrong, and you can't understand why anybody would belive in God. As are you I'm just trying to explain myself, and i'm trying to show how your belife on my wrongness is wrong in itself.

Ultimatly you don't know the truth, nor do I have any claim, I only belive what I do, as do you. Yet I find that people either do not realise this, or plainly ignore it, for the sake of pointing and going look, lookee there at the poor simple minded theist.:D Heheh then they get all knownble about how moral they are? hahah Irony yeah babe I can dig it!

And dangerous.


Why so? read my posts can't you get a feel for what a peacfull, contented, undangoourse bloke I am?

I honestly don't think you're wrong. And i also CAN see why people believe in god, i just can't bring myself to do the same. I'm not saying that people who have a faith are refusing to question, or are wrong to do so. It's just that i find it difficult to accept something based purely on faith. I don't want to start repeating myself now, so i won't. But i DO know why people believe in god, my entire family are devout christians, and i was brought up in the church. Now i am an atheist, but that's not to do with rebelling against controlling parents or anything like that, cos my parents were totally cool. I just drifted away from it since, as i've stated before, i can't accept god or religion.

And i'm not happy with what i know, but not knowing is a fundamental part of being human, it's something everyone has to accept. I've just chosen to try my best to contribute to the already expansive body of knowledge that humans have accumulated, and through that, i feel more comfortable with the unknown and the mystery that we are presented with in the universe.

Why so? read my posts can't you get a feel for what a peacfull, contented, undangoourse bloke I am?

Because you are saying (in the very short thingie you posted) that there is no place for critical thought.

That is dangerous.

Ahhhh Then again I can agree with that. So you'd happily admit that it is just a question of how much faith any indvidual is willing to play with?

On some level axioms have to be assumed
SOMETHING has to be assumed to work from

We should choose those axioms wisely, I choose mine by using ones that have been shown to work or at least the most likely too.

*sigh* I'll say it again then.

God is all, is everything and has always been.

That above is all that you need know about God, it explains any question about God that you will ever have.

Please quote me a more simplisitc view of evolution?

Again sense it was ignored

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

That does not mean the SIMPLEST explanation wins that means the SIMPLEST explanation NEEDED wins.

There is a difference
I could say little faeries make my car go with magic ... that is simpler then the chemical reactions that cause an explosion ... but it is not the simplest explanation NEEDED

You misunderstand Occam's Razor

Have you ever seen a program being made?
First you make rules then implement everything in them.
I belive thats how god created universe. Created rules (laws of physics) then created in them.
Evolution was but a tool of god. You don't think it was a brush and color that created an painting, artist did. With his tools.
I belive bible is true, but written in alegories, like Jesus told stories about lost lamb to explain things, so god told stories to people they could understand.
Imagine God going to some shepard in 3000 bc "Through my will, I bound enrgy into mass and when I created enough mass it went to a critical point of atomic weight and exploded creating briliant explosion that was begining of universe."
"huh?"
"I created light."

or

"In the begining there was only me a transient thought without beging of the end, unbound by time or space."
"Thought?"
"a silent words in head?"
"In begining there was a word?"

I know alot of people belive diferent, but this is my faith here...

I know alot of people belive diferent, but this is my faith here...

your faith is that your god is so stupid that he tried telling people something without realizing before he did so that they wouldn't understand it, and then told them something that was factually wrong instead?

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

I am a pantheist who believes evolution occured. of course, pantheism has the perk that when speaking to atheists I can be an atheist, when speaking to polytheists I can be a polytheist, and when speaking to monotheists I can be a monotheist. or a henotheist. really anything at all. so if by "theist" you mean "I believe in the biblical god" no, I don't (erm, not exactly, anyway - if it existed I strongly suspect the biblical god to have been a bloated totem spirit that only gradually reached enlightenment and outgrew its ancient immaturities), but I am a theist, and I believe in evolution. though honestly I don't really care if we were seeded here by aliens, created, or evolved from primordial ooze, for all the difference it makes in how we live our lives now...

The basis of my belief

I don't want to risk going to hell+ Big bang seems stupid+ Evolution agrees with Genesis=

Theistic Evolution

I'm down with Theistic Evolution. I don't really care what caused evolution. But the bolded part (being called Pascal's Wager) is a terrible reason to believe in god.

It is, quite simply, the worst reason to believe. What if the Egyptians were right and your God is a false one, what then? You're going to hell. What if the norse were right? What if God is Buddah, Odin, Zeus or any other one. Then you are going to hell, by your reasoning. So the only safe way to NOT go to hell is to follow all religions. Even those that contradict each other. Good luck with that.

There is no place for fear in a scientific theory (unless it is a study of fear or something like that).

I'm down with Theistic Evolution. I don't really care what caused evolution. But the bolded part (being called Pascal's Wager) is a terrible reason to believe in god.

It is, quite simply, the worst reason to believe. What if the Egyptians were right and your God is a false one, what then? You're going to hell. What if the norse were right? What if God is Buddah, Odin, Zeus or any other one. Then you are going to hell, by your reasoning. So the only safe way to NOT go to hell is to follow all religions. Even those that contradict each other. Good luck with that.

There is no place for fear in a scientific theory (unless it is a study of fear or something like that).

actually the concept of a "jealous god" who sends people to hell for not following the appropriate religion is only found in a few places. if the egyptians were right, god doesn't really care and you're on your own in the afterlife. if buddha is right, we're in hell right now. if odin or zeus were right, same as with the egyptians. most deities are traditionally understood to be rather apathetic towards anyone who doesn't actively insult them or praise them. and most religions do not particularly contradict eachother. hindus, shintos, taoists, and most indigenous peoples don't have any major conflicts. buddhists don't disagree so much with the claims hinduism makes about the nature of reality, just with what's best for humans to do...and the vast majority of religions understand their own myths are metaphorical truths, not empirical facts, anyway. to claim that most religions contradict eachother is to attribute a western christian ideological understanding of the nature of truth to all of them, and then to go on and attribute the personal of God as understood by said western christians to *all* understandings of deity. it's really only the three abrahamic ones that understand their myths to be factual, and even then there are substantial and ancient sects of judaism, christianity, and islam that all believe scripture is to be interpreted metaphorically, not historically, and that people who follow other religions are not automatically hell-bound. the ancient christian understanding of scripture was that it was first and foremost metaphor and allegory, and only secondarily history. their understanding of salvation was that the safest and easiest way to salvation was through the christian church, but not that it had a monopoly on it by any means. really, the way people usually talk about religion makes their western christian preconditioning blatently obvious. if we put every body of religious philosophy and myth side by side, the vast majority of them would agree with eachother, and not condemn those who they didn't agree with. unfortunately, ideological darwinism has resulted in the angry, defensive minority ideologies into the most powerful and widespread ones.

I do agree, though, pascal's wager is a horrible reason to believe in god. if god is like that, I'd go to hell on principle rather than worship the bloodthirsty bastard.

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

long ago it was theorized the earth was not the center of the universe and it revolved around the sun, itwas ridiculed by theists as blasphemous....science proved it and theists found away to make it fit in with their religion

the theory of evolution was brought forward, theists ridiculed it but once again science has irrefutable evidence to prove the process....theists find a way to accept it in order to continue their belief in a mythical entity....

and so it will always be, every time science comes up with a new discovery theists scramble to explain it away, searching their bible for some quote to once again justify their deluded beliefs to themselves...

education and science is the solution to ignorance, not theological myths.....

long ago it was theorized the earth was not the center of the universe and it revolved around the sun, itwas ridiculed by theists as blasphemous....science proved it and theists found away to make it fit in with their religion

the theory of evolution was brought forward, theists ridiculed it but once again science has irrefutable evidence to prove the process....theists find a way to accept it in order to continue their belief in a mythical entity....

and so it will always be, every time science comes up with a new discovery theists scramble to explain it away, searching their bible for some quote to once again justify their deluded beliefs to themselves...

education and science is the solution to ignorance, not theological myths.....

the first people to propose heliocentricity were greek polytheists.

once a black man robbed a 7-11. therefore all black men rob 7-11s. hardly anyone has the audacity to say things like that. however, once a theist scrambled to explain away a scientific theory. therefore all theists attempt to explain away all science? that's bullshit. give me a break. one sect of stupid theists does not invalidate all theism anymore than one nutty scientist invalidates all science. if I dug up some racist victorian biologist who claimed to have proven white men to be superior, scientifically, I wouldn't have the least bit of justification for calling science as a whole racist and self-serving. but when a *theist* does the same thing, suddenly all theism is inherently stupid/evil/whatever. seriously, grow up. I don't care how much you know about science, if you aren't honest enough with yourself to avoid such glaring logical fallacies like the anti-theistic gripe you're perpetuating now, you're *not* a rational individual.

anyone involved with the hard sciences should have manditory social science training...it's rediculous how many people have high-level understanding of science but manage to know about as much about society and their fellow human beings as they did in 4th grade...:rolleyes:

anyone involved with the hard sciences should have manditory social science training...it's rediculous how many people have high-level understanding of science but manage to know about as much about society and their fellow human beings as they did in 4th grade...:rolleyes:

deluded.....*all* theists have a bible based belief, none of the bible myths is provable so followers are inherently stupid....the belief in a mythical being without any scientific backup for such a belief is *childish and stupid* grow up.

anyone involved with the social sciences should have mandatory hard science training...it's ridiculous how many people have high-level understanding of social science but manage to know about as much about science and their environment as they did in 4th grade...:rolleyes:

deluded.....*all* theists have a bible based belief, none of the bible myths is provable so followers are inherently stupid....the belief in a mythical being without any scientific backup for such a belief is *childish and stupid* grow up.

That's the very reason why God isn't provable. Would you want followers that believed in you because they had hard scientific proof and therefore knew that to do otherwise would be to burn in hell? That's a violation of one of the most basic premises of The Bible. the fact that God gave us Free Will. To scientificly prove him is to violate our free will to choose him or not choose him. those that truely belive in God, do so because they can, and they want to, not because they have to based on some random scientific proof. Their real believers. Anything else is just flase belief and then flase believers. No God wants False believers.

Its not that we're stupid, Believers come in all types of intelligence. Even some scientists are believers.

deluded.....*all* theists have a bible based belief, none of the bible myths is provable so followers are inherently stupid....the belief in a mythical being without any scientific backup for such a belief is *childish and stupid* grow up.

anyone involved with the social sciences should have mandatory hard science training...it's ridiculous how many people have high-level understanding of social science but manage to know about as much about science and their environment as they did in 4th grade...:rolleyes:

that was mature. no, all theists do not have biblically based belief. theism is thousands of years older than the hebrew and christian scriptures...christianity itself, just for the record, existed for several centuries before the compilation of the bible and cannot, by any stretching of the term, be considered "biblically based". judaism is likewise older than its scriptures, it produced its scriptures, after all, and cannot be said to be "biblically based" either.

the accuracy of the protestant claim to be biblically based aside, the majority of theistic belief systems have nothing to do with the bible, or any holy books at all. I don't know if you're writing in charactor or if you actually are ignorant of religion to such an extent, but no, theism by any definition is a phenominon entirely independant of the bible. please, please do some research before you attempt to argue about something. even if you *don't* argue about it, please do some research - it's frightful to know so little about a phenominon as pervasive and influential as religion. I don't mean to be condescending or rude - but you just vehemently attacked a collection of widely divergant ideologies with apperently little to no knowledge of them, and it's rather difficult to let that stand without pointing out the problem here. please, if you'd like to respond, do so without parroting my posts.

That's the very reason why God isn't provable. Would you want followers that believed in you because they had hard scientific proof and therefore knew that to do otherwise would be to burn in hell? That's a violation of one of the most basic premises of The Bible. the fact that God gave us Free Will. To scientificly prove him is to violate our free will to choose him or not choose him. those that truely belive in God, do so because they can, and they want to, not because they have to based on some random scientific proof. Their real believers. Anything else is just flase belief and then flase believers. No God wants False believers.

Its not that we're stupid, Believers come in all types of intelligence. Even some scientists are believers.

for the record, just because this particular theist I'm quoting here seems to believe in biblical divine revelation, not all theists , nor even most, agree with him/her in this regard. without being insulting to the above poster...I, as a theist, think that the reasoning they're presenting here is irrational and generally rather lame. please don't confuse a vocal minority of american protestants with the theistic majority. they aren't even representative of most of christianity, let alone most of theism.

deluded.....*all* theists have a bible based belief, none of the bible myths is provable so followers are inherently stupid....the belief in a mythical being without any scientific backup for such a belief is *childish and stupid* grow up.

You do know the point of a myth isn't to tell a literal story, right? It's meant to convey spiritual and moral truths in a symbolic or supernatural form that is unrelated to physical reality.

I hardly believe that Jesus or Lao-Tzu's teachings are somehow less valuable because they are not "scientific" or are written in a mythical style. Scientism is a dogma that is as threatening to our knowledge of ourselves and the universe we inhabit as any form of religious or political dogmatism. Science has its place, and mythology isn't it...that belongs to the social sciences and religions.

anyone involved with the social sciences should have mandatory hard science training...it's ridiculous how many people have high-level understanding of social science but manage to know about as much about science and their environment as they did in 4th grade...:rolleyes:

And it's amazing how few scientists have a thorough understanding of the arts, social sciences or philosophy. Maybe if everyone learned a little more about each other we would be less likely to label others' beliefs as "delusions" or "ungodly".

A scientist can be as closeminded and dogmatic as any religious fanatic.

Or am I stuck in a corner by myself?

What do you think of it (TE)?


Personally, I believe most of it. *For the most part* Evolution makes sense, and so does god. And the order that things evolved in is the same as everything was made in the bible- no science around then. Each "Day" could be about 1 billion years- more or less.

Well, it's a hell of a lot better than ID, or as it should be called; Dumbass Design.

(Shakes LI's hand)

Congrats. Religious people and atheists would definitely get along better if the pope okayed this. I'm an atheist myself, and I believe in evolution as Darwin taught it. But, well, this works too.

Better being defined as:

Atheists would want to murder all theists, but simply beat them with their severed right leg.

Well, it's a hell of a lot better than ID, or as it should be called; Dumbass Design.

(Shakes LI's hand)

Congrats. Religious people and atheists would definitely get along better if the pope okayed this.

I can ok it if it helps.

your faith is that your god is so stupid that he tried telling people something without realizing before he did so that they wouldn't understand it, and then told them something that was factually wrong instead?

MY faith is that god tried to explain things simply to people, through alegories. But that there are always dumbnuts who don't see alegories but see whatever they want to.

Religious people and atheists would definitely get along better if the pope okayed this.
The Pope has supported TE for years.

Well, it's a hell of a lot better than ID, or as it should be called; Dumbass Design.

(Shakes LI's hand)

Congrats. Religious people and atheists would definitely get along better if the pope okayed this. I'm an atheist myself, and I believe in evolution as Darwin taught it. But, well, this works too.

This is not true Theistic evolution though

He called it theistic evolution (something that I find at least mildly reasonable)
but what he actually said SCREAMS Old earth Creationist

He still believes in a literal genesis at least order which is absolutely silly especially in the light of the mechanism being evolution

Fine if a god creates something in a specific and stupid order fine he would theoretically have the power to do so. But if he uses evolution as his tool then he has to abide by the limitations of the natural

And the natural says things like creating ALL plants before the sun ... is silly

MY faith is that god tried to explain things simply to people, through alegories. But that there are always dumbnuts who don't see alegories but see whatever they want to.

so explain to me what is allegorical about god getting the order of creation completely fucked up

You do know the point of a myth isn't to tell a literal story, right? It's meant to convey spiritual and moral truths in a symbolic or supernatural form that is unrelated to physical reality.

I hardly believe that Jesus or Lao-Tzu's teachings are somehow less valuable because they are not "scientific" or are written in a mythical style. Scientism is a dogma that is as threatening to our knowledge of ourselves and the universe we inhabit as any form of religious or political dogmatism. Science has its place, and mythology isn't it...that belongs to the social sciences and religions.

The problem is that far too few people in the US recognize the Bible as mythological--they accept it as literal truth either in whole or in part and not as allegory or philosophy, and do so no matter what science shows them to the contrary. And to say you've overstated the threat that "scientism" poses is to be more than kind.

so explain to me what is allegorical about god getting the order of creation completely fucked up

do you know what allegory is?

The problem is that far too few people in the US recognize the Bible as mythological--they accept it as literal truth either in whole or in part and not as allegory or philosophy, and do so no matter what science shows them to the contrary.

And that's wrong...it has no real basis in the history of Christianity or Judaism. St. Augustine was one of the first Christians to argue against literalism (to say nothing of the Jews, who never really interpreted it literally), and he lived only 300 or so years after Jesus.

And to say you've overstated the threat that "scientism" poses is to be more than kind.

Dogmatism is always dangerous, and science too can fall prey to it. The last thing I would want is to see scientific innovation and free investigation stifled by a dogmatic group of elitists who use science as ideology rather than method.

And that's wrong...it has no real basis in the history of Christianity or Judaism. St. Augustine was one of the first Christians to argue against literalism (to say nothing of the Jews, who never really interpreted it literally), and he lived only 300 or so years after Jesus.
So here's the question--in the battle between good sense and idiocy, aka science and biblical literalism, where will religious moderates side--with the atheists or the literalists? My guess? The atheists will still be fighting this one on their own.

so explain to me what is allegorical about god getting the order of creation completely fucked up

Because it IS allegory. Man if I told you a story about fox, raven and wheel of cheese you'd go.
"But raven can't carry that much cheese"
well DUH, its an allegory. God wasn't describing how world was made in detail, he just told a story of creation. Order is about as important as my opinion on australian defence policy.