Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[betsy]

Actually, no. The purpose of the scientific method is opposition. This debate weeds out improbable information.

I was talking about institutions.

All students whether they become scientists or not, are taught in our public schools the theory of evolution without any consideration of alternative theories, including of course, creationism.

I'm not saying that those who became scientist were not taught proper scientific methodology. I'm just saying that they were indoctrinated with a specific theory to the exclusion of others.

Edited April 18, 2009 by betsy

[cybercoma]

There is no alternate theory to evolution, just as there's no alternate theory to gravity.

The beginning of sentience is something entirely different, but as another poster already pointed out in this thread, creation is highly improbable.

Let me ask you something. If science has shown that many parts of the Bible are not to be taken as literal truth because in fact they are plainly wrong, what part of the Bible can be taken as literally true? And if none of the Bible is literally true, then whose humanly interpretations are we to believe?

PS: I fully support them teaching creationism alongside evolution, just as long as they offer equal time to all other religious and philosophical metaphysics. I think that would be good. Kids can spend years just studying myriad theories about where everything came from.

[betsy]

Of course, Genesis doesn't explain how the life from outer space (i.e., god) arose in the first place either.

Belief in God requires belief in the eternal existence of God. God always was and always will be. This isn't a leap of faith by any standards. Scientists believed, before the Big Bang Theory (ie The beginning of the universe), that the universe has always existed.

So it will be difficult for the scientific community to criticize Christians' belief in an eternal God when they (scientists) believed until recently in an eternal universe. The difference is belief in an eternal God accounts for the Big Bang.

Without it, where is cause and effect?

[betsy]

There is no alternate theory to evolution, just as there's no alternate theory to gravity.

gravity isn't a theory. It is a law.

The beginning of sentience is something entirely different, but as another poster already pointed out in this thread, creation is highly improbable.

So they pointed it out. They're pointing in the wrong direction.

Let me ask you something. If science has shown that many parts of the Bible are not to be taken as literal truth because in fact they are plainly wrong, what part of the Bible can be taken as literally true?

What parts of the Bible are you talking about that have been proven scientifically, let alone in any other way, to be un-true?

what part of the Bible can be taken as literally true?

Is this a trick question? Maybe the parts that haven't been scientifically proven to be un-true.

And if none of the Bible is literally true, then whose humanly interpretations are we to believe?

None of the human interpretations should be believed IF none of the Bible is literally true.

PS: I fully support them teaching creationism alongside evolution, just as long as they offer equal time to all other religious and philosophical metaphysics. I think that would be good. Kids can spend years just studying myriad theories about where everything came from.

Translation: If you're just gonna teach what I believe, that's okay. But if you also want to teach what you believe, then better let everybody talk.

Suddenly free speech is important.

I fully support them teaching creationism alongside evolution, just as long as they offer equal time to all other religious and philosophical metaphysics. I think that would be good. Kids can spend years just studying myriad theories about where everything came from

Fine.

Edited April 18, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

I think Betsy and the men here are caught in a false debate because they speak two very different kinds of discourse (hysterical discourse and the discourse of the university). To deal with these two discourses, one has to speak another kind of discourse (the Analyst's discourse).

http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...4#PRA2-PA298,M1

Edited April 18, 2009 by benny

[BubberMiley]

Belief in God requires belief in the eternal existence of God. God always was and always will be.

But the concept of eternity is based on the concept of time, which is (part of?) the time/space continuum, which was only created later by god if god created the universe. From our perspective, time itself is eternal because it appears to have no possibility of beginning or ending. Even without a universe to exist in time, time could still exist. So maybe god is actually just another word for time...

[benny]

But the concept of eternity is based on the concept of time, which is (part of?) the time/space continuum, which was only created later by god if god created the universe. From our perspective, time itself is eternal because it appears to have no possibility of beginning or ending. Even without a universe to exist in time, time could still exist. So maybe god is actually just another word for time...

Steven Spielberg can be very helpful for someone who wants to understand the relationship between creatures (creation) and immortality (eternity).

[tango]

I know....I know...this happened.....that happened....they burned witches....blah-blah-blah.

But that wasn't Christianity. Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now.

But that wasn't Christianity.

??? Who was it then? The history books say it was Christianity.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[benny]

But that wasn't Christianity.

??? Who was it then? The history books say it was Christianity.

The hallmark of Christianity is: Apocalypse is coming if you don't stop searching for scapegoats (i.e. if you don't turn your other cheek).

[cybercoma]

gravity isn't a theory. It is a law.

I'm not even going to touch this one. I'm sorry, but you need to take an honest look at how science works.

What parts of the Bible are you talking about that have been proven scientifically, let alone in any other way, to be un-true?

The entire reason a new scientific method was developed by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes was because Copernicus's hypotheses about the earth brought into question how we can ever know anything. Copernicus was the one that figured out the earth is moving through space and rotating. His theories defied scripture and Galileo made it his goal to resolve the Copernican hypotheses with scripture. That's why Galileo was put on trial and considered a heretic because he defied the Church's literal interpretations of the Bible.

Here are a couple of the scripture in question:

Joshua 10:12-14 (NIV)

"12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,

O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still,

and the moon stopped,

till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!"

This view of the universe predates Copernicus, where it was believed that the earth was central with the celestial satellites rotating around the earth. Copernicus, subsequently Brahe and Kepler, proved this wrong, which seemed ridiculous to people at the time. Regardless, if people literally interpret the Bible, this indicates that the satellites revolve around the earth, which is completely false.

Psalms 104:5

"5 He set the earth on its foundations;

it can never be moved."

The earth is moving at thousands of miles an hour through space. Not only is the earth orbiting the sun, but it is rotating on its axis as well. The earth is fixed? Not even a little bit.

The Copernican theory was disputed by the Church and thought to be ridiculous by society because of passages in the Bible such as these. Galileo was the one that said the Bible is written in an illustrative language to facilitate comprehension for humanity, whereas nature is vastly complex and beyond comprehension for some. In other words, the Bible is not literally true, but nature is.

This brings me back to my original questions. If the Bible is not the literal truth, which has been shown by scientific advancement, then it must be interpreted to be understood. And if the Bible needs interpretation, whose interpretation of the Bible are we to believe?

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma

[benny]

This brings me back to my original questions. If the Bible is not the literal truth, which has been shown by scientific advancement, then it must be interpreted to be understood. And if the Bible needs interpretation, whose interpretation of the Bible are we to believe?

Niels Bohr knew that belief is a very strange phenomenon:

[BubberMiley]

This brings me back to my original questions. If the Bible is not the literal truth, which has been shown by scientific advancement, then it must be interpreted to be understood. And if the Bible needs interpretation, whose interpretation of the Bible are we to believe?

Hmmm...Best post I've read on this board in months.

[benny]

Hmmm...Best post I've read on this board in months.

I suggest you to read more.

[cybercoma]

Hmmm...Best post I've read on this board in months.

1/3815. I'm on a roll! Thanks!

[betsy]

So maybe god is actually just another word for time...

Interesting theory.

Edited April 18, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

I'm not even going to touch this one. I'm sorry, but you need to take an honest look at how science works.

I guess it must be science that worked out gravity. Without science we wouldn't have gravity. Is that what you're trying to say?

[BubberMiley]

I guess it must be science that worked out gravity. Without science we wouldn't have gravity. Is that what you're trying to say?

No. I think what's he's trying to say is that when Isaac Newton sat under the apple tree, he came up with a theory about gravity that, with emperical testing, withstood the rigours of the scientific method and became widely accepted. There was no "law" set forth from above---just a scientific theory that bears scrutiny.

[benny]

If only the ontology supported by biology would be as feminine as the one supported by physics.

http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...=4#PRA1-PA99,M1

[cybercoma]

No. I think what's he's trying to say is that when Isaac Newton sat under the apple tree, he came up with a theory about gravity that, with emperical testing, withstood the rigours of the scientific method and became widely accepted. There was no "law" set forth from above---just a scientific theory that bears scrutiny.

Thanks. You put that into words better than I could have. I lose sight of my arguments when I get frustrated with ignorance.

[benny]

Thanks. You put that into words better than I could have. I lose sight of my arguments when I get frustrated with ignorance.

What you would like to belief is ignorance is actually a short-circuit between the Symbolic order and the Real.

http://books.google.com/books?id=je702bo2P...4#PRA2-PA312,M1

[cybercoma]

benny, seriously, I've read Zizek's Parallax View. I don't need you to point out the parts that you feel are important. How about coming up with your own ideas.

[benny]

benny, seriously, I've read Zizek's Parallax View. I don't need you to point out the parts that you feel are important. How about coming up with your own ideas.

For evolutionary biology, ideas are memes.

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

[cybercoma]

Yes. Thanks for the link. I know what a meme is. You're a pedantic one, aren't you?

[benny]

Yes. Thanks for the link. I know what a meme is. You're a pedantic one, aren't you?

You wouldn't have asked for MY ideas if you would have known what a meme is.

[cybercoma]

You wouldn't have asked for MY ideas if you would have known what a meme is.

Yes I would have.

Since you're so fond of links, why don't you go back to your wiki link and re-read this sentence a few times until it sinks in:

"Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism; they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences."

So, do you have any ideas of your own, or am I to understand that you're here to cut and paste links and present them as arguments?

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma