Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
The only point out of the first, very verbose, post on that blog that I found even slightly reasonable was this:
"I just wish people will stop looking at a chessboard after 100 moves and cry intelligence has only evolved after those 100 moves, neglecting somebody had to come up with the rules and the pieces to begin with."
It's basically what people on this forum, and indeed many Biologists, have been saying anyway.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."
^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
You are right the Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I do agree that KJV was poorly translated, especially with the British English but what they had to work with back then were inferior, i.e. better original manuscripts have been discovered since the King Jame I days. But I do believe KJV might have gone through some revisions but I am not sure. As for the other English translations, I am not aware of any translations that were not translated from their original language. But you are right the translation is always inferior. Luckily now days all seminary students have to learn the original languges anyway.
Yes it does say that Methuselah lived 969 year and the Bible does mention that people did live much longer back then than we do today. I wouldn't blame the translation though, since there are so many detail accounts of how long people have lived in the Bible. And plus they would also had to mistranslate Genesis 6, where God specifically shortens human lifespan. As for the lunar cycle, it wouldn't make a much of a difference, may be a number of days a year or so.
Though on a minor note, I'm going to pick you up on two things:
The Moon orbits the Earth every 28 days (or so), and the Earth orbits Sol every 365 days (or so). This would make a big difference.
What are you trying to say?
Personally I am an evolutionist, and here's why.
To me, the idea of a God brings up far more questions than answers and I work on the Occum's Razor principle. Granted, I may not know the origin of the earth, but to state that it was created by some ultimate being creates so many questions that my mind begins to boggle.
I see religion as a whole to be a form of Freudean 'wish fulfillment'. This does not say that it isn't true.
As any good scientist, I am not an atheist, as that would be foolish. This would completely discounting a theory (granted I may not feel that that theory is overly credible, but it is a theory all the same.) and all good scientists should never discount a theory until it has been proven false.
So maybe tomorrow a better manuscript is found and a more correct translation accepted?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
I dont mean to sound massively ignorant, but in The Da Vinci Code (will I regret saying this?) there was mention of other Bible books not released by the Vatican.
Is there any truth in this, and if so how on Earth can you take it seriously knowing its been edited and abridged by Man (assuming its divine origin)?
I believe all true knowledge does lead to more questions than answers. Furthermore, I would be highly concerned if all scientists ran from the first encounter of "unanswerable" mysteries. Greater the mystery greater they should be motivated; more mind boggling it is more challenging it would be.
What you say is true. There are exactly 66 books in the Bible, Old and New Testaments. However there are other books out there. In fact the Bible is a collection of stories, genealogies, poems, prophecies, letters and what have you, written by hundreds of different people spread over thousands of years. It is believed that all of its contents are divinely inspired. Obviously over the history of man kind, more accurately since the period when man became literate, there has been far more writings about God than what are included in the Bible. It is also believed that the selection of the books to be included was also divinely inspired. The book could not have existed without the divine interventions. You ask me I do lean to the opinion that it could not have been a work of men most of whom with different backgrounds who knew nothing of each other and their written work - especially considering it is the most read, most scrutinized, dissected and studied written work beyond all comparison.
A design that is NOT creative?! I'm not sure how you see this use of terms as consistent. I see it as inconsistent,... even self-contradictory.
Any manner of talking in plain language will have vestiges of metaphor related to the creator of metaphors (i.e., humans), so total non-anthropocentric dialogue seems impossible to me.
I say the universe is creative. You say it is by design. But a design does not just sit there as an non-dynamic blueprint; it moves. This movement is what I call being creative. "Creative" is a description of form building, which you call being built from a design.
"Design" is a very human-suggestive term too. "Who is the designer?".. is the question it begs to be answered.
If no designer is needed to make a design, then no creator is needed to be creative. Again, the terms are not in conflict. I see them as cooperative, where neither needs a centralized mind-like intelligence behind it.
That is true. And I would be more delighted if they do than not. But it is the general consensus that what we have now are quite accurate and no major discovery is expected. Not that even when they did in the past, it didn't change the Bible as a whole but may be a sentence here and there. It just shows you how much the Bible is scrutinized and delicately handled in every way to prevent any possible corruption.
I think we are in an agreement. I do believe that the universe is creative. But not in the sense that as it passes through time it becomes more creative. From the beginning that creative power was always there. Nothing in this universe is really "new" if you will, they are just manifested from the intangible law of science to the tangible material in 3 dimensions. In this sense the universe already had in mind what it could do from the beginning. If we think what were created were accidental where is the accident in the law of science that always was and always is? Thus it no longer creates itself.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests