NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[DemonKnight]

I guess a bored at work request is out of the question

 

[Jumpin Johnies]

So you're saying that Moses sat down one day and wrote down information that happened thousands of years before he was alive?

Yes I am, Jesus also confirmed this but you don't believe in Jesus so it's all baloney to you.

[twiley]

Peter Gabriel

I thought that was Phil Collins.

[BiggieFries]

I thought that was Phil Collins.

 

Everyone knows that Gabriel was the brains of the operation, Collins was just the front man! I read it somewhere by some guy that knew Gabriel so it must be true. It means Gabriel confirmed it!

[Kid Cid]

Yes I am, Jesus also confirmed this but you don't believe in Jesus so it's all baloney to you.

We haven't even gotten to Jesus yet. You keep trying to jump thousands of years ahead of things.

 

So now, I'm no Biblical scholar, I'm going to have to take your word that Moses did indeed write Genesis.

 

How did he know about all these things that happened thousands of years before he was born?

[Jumpin Johnies]

Everyone knows that Gabriel was the brains of the operation, Collins was just the front man! I read it somewhere by some guy that knew Gabriel so it must be true. It means Gabriel confirmed it!

He was there.

[whomper]

I thought that was Phil Collins.

 

 

They booted Peter Gabriel when he wanted some free time to spend with his baby daughter ISMRC

Edited November 20, 2007 by whomper

[BiggieFries]

He was there.

 

Of course he was there, Gabriel was in the band.

[twiley]

Everyone knows that Gabriel was the brains of the operation, Collins was just the front man! I read it somewhere by some guy that knew Gabriel so it must be true. It means Gabriel confirmed it!

I've been living a lie all these years.

[Jumpin Johnies]

We haven't even gotten to Jesus yet. You keep trying to jump thousands of years ahead of things.

 

So now, I'm no Biblical scholar, I'm going to have to take your word that Moses did indeed write Genesis.

 

How did he know about all these things that happened thousands of years before he was born?

You're missing the point, Jesus is the point. I can't get you to understand that. The entire Old Testament was preparing us for the coming of Christ. He confitmed the OT. If you don't believe in Him I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Of course he was there, Gabriel was in the band.

word

[BiggieFries]

No He said it and I'll take Peter's word any day. These same "lying friends" were willing and in many cases died because they wouldn't denounce or deny His words or actions.

 

Who said anyone was lying? I was saying that it wasn't JC that "confirmed" those things you say he did. You're getting your information second (and sometimes third) hand. How can you say "JC confirmed it" when it wasn't JC doing the talking/writing?

[DemonKnight]

You're missing the point, Jesus is the point. I can't get you to understand that. The entire Old Testament was preparing us for the coming of Christ. He confitmed the OT. If you don't believe in Him I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

 

Wow, why dont Jews believe this? And wasnt Moses Jewish?

[Jumpin Johnies]

Who said anyone was lying? I was saying that it wasn't JC that "confirmed" those things you say he did. You're getting your information second (and sometimes third) hand. How can you say "JC confirmed it" when it wasn't JC doing the talking/writing?

If there were 25,000 manuscripts written that correlated 99% and they were written by folks from all walks of life and many of those people were willing to and did die for those words, I'm thinking He said it. You can put the shudders on, it really doesn't matter to me.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Wow, why dont Jews believe this? And wasnt Moses Jewish?

Jesus was Jewsish. They thought that He was either an evil spirit committing good deeds but not the Messiah. They thought that He wouldn't die but He came to die for our sins. Isaiah 53 which I've already posted in this thread foretold how Christ would come, how He would be reveived and how He would die. It was prophesiised that many would'nt believe. You can also read Psalm 22. Everything that happened when He came was written by the prophets hundreds of years in advance.

[Jumpin Johnies]

I'm going home, later.

[Kid Cid]

You're missing the point, Jesus is the point. I can't get you to understand that. The entire Old Testament was preparing us for the coming of Christ. He confitmed the OT. If you don't believe in Him I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

No, you're missing the point.

 

There's this book of stuff written down by multiple guys that covers the history of a wandering tribe for approximately 4000 years. The very early stuff is the oral history of this tribe that was finally transcribed once a written language became available to these people. The accuracy of this history (both written and oral) has been both called into question and verified by archaeological evidence. Some of it is true, some of it isn't. As with any other story, it has been changed in the telling.

 

We also know, that oral histories are rife with inaccuracies simply because humans find it very difficult to repeat things verbatum. What they see and hear and what they say are very often two different things. Ask any police officer how accurate eyewitness testimony can be.

 

So now, you're saying that this story of creation, that was passed though many mouths before ever being written down, is 100% accurate in it's telling. When the only evidence we have supports a claim that perhaps Adam and Eve were just maybe the oldest two people that the original historian could remember? Back during a time when superstition and fear ruled daily lives more than logic?

 

Finally, your take is that this history, no matter how shakey the foundation it is built on, has a stronger claim to being the truth of what happened than a theory that has been advanced and been placed under scientific scrutiny. And your claim is that because some guy that lived 2000 years ago (but 4000 years after the events in question) said it was so, then that makes it so?

 

If you cannot see why some folks find this hard to swallow then it's only because you don't want to.

[Rovers]

JJ, Christ taught using parables, correct? So it would be easier for the average Joe walking around in the street 2000 years ago could better understand the message? Using parables didn't make Christ a liar, it made him a teacher. The story of Adam and Eve is a parable, JJ. That does not mean Gid did not create everything, it was a way to explain creation to people who otherwise might not have understood the message, which is what is improtant, it's the teachings that are important, not the vehicle or story used to teach the truth.

 

Imagine, yer talking to a skeptical largely illiterate mob.... and just to set up yout teachings you have to first give a three month long explanation of how God created everything.... the HOW was not important, it was the TEACHINGS, the value system, the how to live stuff that was important.... so Christ just jumped over a detailed explanation using the Adam and Eve parable to get to the important stuff. The story of Adam and Eve is SYMBOLIC truth, so Christ didn't lie. People these days use analogies to help communicat an idea.... parables are not far different from analogies.

 

Right wing christians get all caught up in trying to build some sort of indestructable wall to defend an overly simplistic value and moral system. Every time I listen to one, I reach the same conclussion... delusional thinking and gross rationalizations to defend a system of right and wrong that was created by people to be infallable, and thereby a life without conflict. Everything is black and white. You are a believer like them, or you're not. They then call themselves saints, and are convinced evryone else is going to hell. From this safely made nest high in a tree, they look down and judge all who pass. Little do they know that the power company just might be coming down the street to prune branches from the power lines.

 

One more point.... Christ apparently DID believe in at least some seperation of church and state, as he did say "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's." The absolute righteousness that is preached by right wing christians actuall flies in the face of many of Christ's teachings.... Christ hung out with the sinners... the tax collectors, the prostitutes, and was called out for it many times. Right wing christians condemn those same questionable characters in today's society. The live as far away from the truths of Christ's teachings so as to be .... I'll say it again... delusional.

[Azazello1313]

all i'm saying is that i'm skeptical of the science we have generated in just the last few decades that causes us to think we know precisely how old our planet is.

 

and you are "skeptical" not because you thoroughly understand the science and how the experts have arrived at their conclusions and find their methods specious. you are "skeptical" solely because their conclusions in some way don't jive with the personal spiritual mantle you've put around yourself (and that "skepticism" has absolutely nothing to do with actually being skeptical). some deal with this apparent disparity between naturalistic observation and personal spiritualism by trying to gain a deeper understanding of both, honing the one until it makes sense in light of the other. others, like you, deal with the disparity by sticking their head in the ground, pretending they know better than those biased scientific experts do -- and that it is this biased desire on their part to intrude on your spiritual outlook, and not the hard, observable data in front of them, that leads them to push these half baked "theories".

 

you might do well to learn a few lessons from history here. there have been many, many occasions where the naturalistic observations of scientists have butted up against religious dogma on scientific questions. i am pretty certain that in every single confrontation that has been resolved, the same side has been dead wrong every time. this doesn't prove that religion is wrong or bad....but it should give us a pretty solid clue that religion is pretty bad at answering scientific questions.

[tonorator]

That being said, would you agree that based on those same notions, that maintaining a healthy skepticism towards the existenance of any god would be a good idea? After all, there is even less evidence for the existenance of any god than there is for what you're asking us to maintain our skepticism about.

 

cid, i've had that my whole life. hell yes (pardon the pun) a healthy skepticism towards the existence of god is a good idea. even though i've taken a leap of faith, it still leaves me scratching my head on a daily basis, believe me. what's different is that i'm trying to come at it from a different paradigm and then see how my world view changes. it is fascinating. it starts, however, with your heart more than your mind, which was the big change for me. i could write for hours on this alone.

 

i'm in no way asking you to remove that skepticism from this discussion or your life. both creationism and evolution deserve a big dose of skepticism, but i also believe they are both valid theories that do not threaten anyone by discussing them both in an academic session (even in science class - gasp!). if you start from the paradigm that we have always had distinct species of living creatures (which fossil evidence overwhelmingly supports, with some exceptions), or from the paradigm that this place is seemingly perfectly designed for us to survive amid a sea of endless complexity, it can change how you base your theories and how you go about executing the scientific method.

[Azazello1313]

it's funny that according to JJ, jesus was apparently a jewish fundamentalist. this despite turning the entire jewish religion on its head, and basically saying that about three quarters of the rules in the jewish scriptures were distracting junk.

 

in truth, the bible-thumpers of jesus' time were jesus' most bitter enemies. christianity was never a "book" religion until christians with their own agenda, many, many centuries later started trying to make it so.

[bushwacked]

I guess a bored at work request is out of the question

 

[Rovers]

cid, i've had that my whole life. hell yes (pardon the pun) a healthy skepticism towards the existence of god is a good idea. even though i've taken a leap of faith, it still leaves me scratching my head on a daily basis, believe me. what's different is that i'm trying to come at it from a different paradigm and then see how my world view changes. it is fascinating. it starts, however, with your heart more than your mind, which was the big change for me. i could write for hours on this alone.

 

i'm in no way asking you to remove that skepticism from this discussion or your life. both creationism and evolution deserve a big dose of skepticism, but i also believe they are both valid theories that do not threaten anyone by discussing them both in an academic session (even in science class - gasp!). if you start from the paradigm that we have always had distinct species of living creatures (which fossil evidence overwhelmingly supports, with some exceptions), or from the paradigm that this place is seemingly perfectly designed for us to survive amid a sea of endless complexity, it can change how you base your theories and how you go about executing the scientific method.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, but back to the original topic:

 

Creationism is a one God inspired theory.

 

God based theories should be taught in churches and private schools, not public schools.

 

Show me one single shred of scientific evidence that creationism as a theory has been proven to have even a slight chance of being proven scientifically. The knee jerk response is that there remain some holes in evolutionary theory, but evolutionary theory has a ton of scientific data to support it, while creationism has zero, nada, zippo. It is a faith based theory, and therefore has no place in publically funded educational institutions.

 

With the exception of JJ, is this what evryone else can agree to? That was what the furor in the Dover school district was all about.... you can't teach religion (one God faith based creationism theory) in public schools. Thank God the judge was unbiased when he made his ruling.

[tonorator]

you are "skeptical" solely because their conclusions in some way don't jive with the personal spiritual mantle you've put around yourself (and that "skepticism" has absolutely nothing to do with actually being skeptical). some deal with this apparent disparity between naturalistic observation and personal spiritualism by trying to gain a deeper understanding of both, honing the one until it makes sense in light of the other. others, like you, deal with the disparity by sticking their head in the ground, pretending they know better than those biased scientific experts do -- and that it is this biased desire on their part to intrude on your spiritual outlook, and not the hard, observable data in front of them, that leads them to push these half baked "theories".

 

that's bs az. i've been very open about my feelings and none of them are about putting a spiritual mante around myself. go back and read the thread again and stop taking the easy way out. i've been grappling with this question and coming at it from all levels since i've been able to think and for most of that time, i was a staunch athiest. there's no sticking my head in the ground and, again, if tried to read where i'm coming from you would see someone with a very open mind, trying to understand.

 

have we not had monumental discoveries about our earth and universe during this current generation? discovering that the universe is expanding or being able to date materials in terms of millions or billions of years and claiming that all the data is out there to back this up with certainty ... you don't see any possibility of arrogance or presumptuousness there? you don't think constructs are created from which we base our science that are maybe based on incorrect assumptions?

 

if we have been here billions of years, the time we have made these discoveries equates to the same size as a gnat in the ocean. could we maybe be a bit ahead of ourselves and there are some base underlying assumptions out there that could reset things.

 

this has nothing to do with trying to convince people of biblical teachings, they are honest questions independent of that.

[tonorator]

Creationism is a one God inspired theory.

 

i think the design theory is a fascinating one and i believe that it can exist indepently of christianity. there is remarkable order to this earth and a complexity that is seemingly infinite. supposing that it was ordered this way vs. happening by chance is a fascinating construct to discuss and then explore what those impacts would have to conventional wisdom. that's what we are doing here. i'm not saying teach it as fact. i'm saying put it on the table to talk. no one is harmed by this.

Edited November 20, 2007 by tonorator