Login

Join for Free!
118254 members


Bible vs Darwin

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby AstusAleator » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:07 pm

violoco5 wrote:A Straw-man (which is a noun not a adjective) point of view would be someone who's asserting opinion, based on "ignorance"(which is what you're implying onto me) about a particular subject and has merit in what he/she says.


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

I like how you're making up your own definitions for everything. Anyway, the whole straw-man thing was just pointed at your example creationist argument because none of us have heard it before, and we've heard all the most popular ones.
It's really not an attack, in any sense, to point out a logical misstep. If he called you an idiot, that would be "irascible vitriol".

violoco5 wrote:If you took a harder look you'd see "philosophy" at the end of that sentence.
And if alex is right, which he is in this quote, he wouldn't have agreed with me, and disagreed with you.
alextemplet wrote:You are right that some religious doctrines are, as you describe, outdated and oppressive

I was addressing philosophy. Apparently you, self-admittedly, were talking about doctrine. While doctrine is a subset of philosophy, any single doctrine does not represent its parent philosophy as-a-whole. Furthermore, since we're using alex's word as truth now, I'd like to point out that he said they are outdated and oppressive; not outdated because they are oppressive.


My own commentary on your illogic seems to have fallen on deaf ears (eyes?).
When A does not equal B, but you say C = A because C = B, that's faulty logic. I will go back to my example--
--"out-of-date philosophy"(A) does not equal "oppressive/repressive philosophy"(B) even though many oppressive/repressive philosophies are now out-of-date. The definition of "out-of-date philosophy" relies more on social context, and is a much more complicated issue. You are oversimplifying and creating a purely subjective definition that fits your needs. Furthermore you are basing this definition on some supposed antonymical relationship between "progressive" and "oppressive/repressive", perhaps confusing them with "regressive".
--But you say "christian philosophy"(C) is(=) an "out-of-date philosophy"(A)
--Because: "christian philosophy"(C) is(=) "oppressive/repressive philosophy"(B)

And, as I said before, your second premise (that christian philosophy is oppressive/repressive) is arguable at best.


You're spewing out a lot of words and trying to be controversial, but the people responding to you aren't arguing so much with what you say as much as with how you say it and how your logic is presented.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby mcar » Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:33 pm

reetha25 wrote:
[color=#FF4000]Religion is a primitive mans justice system, politics and science. 1000s of years before the Bible was written, you can find the same stories and cretures in other books that represented other beliefs The anti christ, noahs ark, demons, angels are just to name a few. The stories are the same, just changed the names and tweeked the story to fit their need. The Koran, the text that represents the Muslim cult has stories copied from other religions. Meca was a place of worship for 100s of different religions. It was here where people from the Muslim cult stole the term Allah from other religions. Allah started off as a female, god of the Moon. They tweeked it into a dude. Back then if copyright laws exsisted, some of these cults would not be around today.


Honestly, I am tired already to read all over again the latest posts here. As what I see here, since we are in a very modern age of reason, we have gone so far. Our minds are no longer satisfied for whatever information it has gone through. The speculations are being too wild that it somewhat can no longer fit into a more simple idea. We had made and thought too much of such ideas. Now, this could be a test to everybody. Setting aside science for the meanwhile, the world is clearly seen as a blinded home, a very dark place already. We learned because we have been educated, but what should be worried about is how far is this knowledge could bring us far from what we must be also giving a chance in our lives.
---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---
mcar
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)

Postby tobby » Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:38 am

anyone who says that the bible is not true or God is just another story, think twice or even more.
tobby
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:31 am


Re:

Postby alextemplet » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:07 pm

tobby wrote:anyone who says that the bible is not true or God is just another story, think twice or even more.


I would advise anyone pondering this issue (or any other, to be honest) to investigate the matter thoroughly, but what does any of this have to do with evolution? We seem to have gotten far away from the original purpose of this forum, in my opinion.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby Darwin420 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:19 pm

Tobby, why should I think twice? Give me some proof to support your statement that I should think twice. And if you can't, then me saying we should believe in little green men living in our brains is just as probable.

I am sorry, and this may offend people, but I don't get how people can have so much faith in a God, but yet you can't prove it. Wars are fought due to religion, and what do they have to prove for it?

I am naturalistic, meaning I use my surroundings to come up with logical ideas and conclusions ...sorry "God".
Darwin420
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:09 am

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby mcar » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:24 am

Darwin 420 wrote:
Tobby, why should I think twice? Give me some proof to support your statement that I should think twice. And if you can't, then me saying we should believe in little green men living in our brains is just as probable.

I am sorry, and this may offend people, but I don't get how people can have so much faith in a God, but yet you can't prove it. Wars are fought due to religion, and what do they have to prove for it?

I am naturalistic, meaning I use my surroundings to come up with logical ideas and conclusions ...sorry "God".



It is true that from the past, evolutionary sciences were restricted and any underlying concepts about evolution were considered rebellious and heretical. And here, we are trying to think of the possibilities of origin through scientific terms that in this case, we're exploring Charles Darwin's concepts and applying them to explain the origin of living things. There's nothing wrong if we use the facts out of our observations, it is because we have senses and we can not help not to use them; through our senses we became curious and therefore we started asking questions of any kind.

In the Biblical sense, there's nothing wrong too if we are to give ourselves to think about it. Faith on God does not need any proof. It is up to you whether you would like to give a chance accepting it. Now, if you choose to be more naturalistic than being a believer, fine; I am not going to contend.
Suppose you would like to give yourself a benefit of the doubt that what if the things written in the Bible were true, there's nothing to lose.
---Just one act of random kindness at a time and you can change the world---
mcar
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby wbla3335 » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:17 am

mcar wrote:Suppose you would like to give yourself a benefit of the doubt that what if the things written in the Bible were true, there's nothing to lose.


I agree. What good have knowledge, understanding, and wisdom ever done for us.
wbla3335
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:20 am

Postby alextemplet » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:05 pm

I love wisdom, and praise it as the highest of all virtues. That's a large part of why I love the Bible so much; it's so full of wisdom!

To interpret the Bible as a treatise on natural history is, I think, to grossly misunderstand its purpose, sort of like trying to read Darwin's Origin of Species as a discussion of morality.

As far as faith, I think there are many reasons to believe that could be considered logical, and many reasons not to believe that could be considered logical. The problem with logic is that just about anything can be made to seem logical depending on how you look at it, especially concerning a matter with complete lack of evidence for or against.

Religions are about as responsible for wars in the same way that oil causes wars. It is the nature of humans to fight each other, and without religion we would just find another excuse. To blame religion for warfare is, in my opinion, a very ignorant and short-sighted view.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby bebaloo19 » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:02 pm

Who is Mith?

I have to correct something that was said. It is technically the 7 day creation theory.
and even religious people debate this theory. There is controversy on how long 7 days was back then. we do not tell time the same way as they did back then so the bible could mean 7 days or 7 million years. I also do not think that the bible is flawed. If the bible is flawed then you wouldnt be able to believe anything in it! Today the church is not christian church is not resisting. There has not been plausable proof to any theories that have been thought up. I have studied many alternatives to Creationism and have found no solid proof for any of them. In fact, I have found in many cases that there is actually proof to damn the theory as false. In the case when people say there is no proof that the bible is true, that is a false statement. If you look at some archiological studies that have been done. we Know that the kings in the bible actually existed and that the cities were real cities. If you want to argue against or for something, try studying it first!
bebaloo19
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:38 pm

Postby canalon » Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:21 pm

Mith is another user (and as it happens one of the moderators).

My reaction to your post is that it is not because one part of the Bible is true that everything is true. The Bible is a collection of oral and written traditions that went through many compilations and translations. There is probably a lot of true things (reports of true events as they were lived), doubtful things (hearsay or just traditions from the region that have gone through a lot of modifications as the Noah's story that is a common theme in the region), and simple stories (like the genesis) or interpretation of events that were not understood at that time that simply cannot be taken true word for word. So the truth of an element do not prove the truth of the rest.

As for teh rest I admire your wonderful dedication to study evolution and all alternative theory of creation, but somehow I doubt you have a real understanding of evolution. But I would be interested in your rebuttal. And what is your rebuttal for the flying spaghetti monster?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby David George » Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:40 am

My reaction to your post is that it is not because one part of the Bible is true that everything is true


Yeah everything is true heheheheehe :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I think Bible is history book written by the people of Israel and you cannot trust everything written by Israelites about themselves.The egyptian king Ramses 2 said that he had a glorious victory against the hitties and there are many inscriptions in his temples which say the same.But in reality he gained almost nothing execpt for a hittie princess.There are many such stories which have not been corrected due to lack of evidence[especially in the books of "Kings" & "Chronicles"].
So i don't think everything in the Bible is correct leave alone the miracles and stories.....
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
User avatar
David George
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: India [place where religion rules people]

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby AstusAleator » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:21 pm

I have a new favorite religion (Scientific Theory...) Thanks for the link Canalon. I'd heard of Pastafarians before but didn't know what it was all about.
Image
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests