The stages of evolution

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 9:01 pm

Falkeep,<BR>I believe we are missing each other. I believe that the Catholic Church was wrong for what it did to Galileo, no one should force their beliefs on other people. Free Will is a God given freedom. Anyone trying to get in the way of Free Will of belief is doing evil.<BR><BR>I think that you will find, if you are willing to go back and read my posts, that I never once tried to force my beliefs on others. I tried to say that evolution could be wrong. For doing that I got labeled closed minded and had my Holy Book degraded.<BR><BR>I am glad to see that you agree with me that we don't really know what happened in the beginning and that creation is a possibility.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Axordil » Wed May 23, 2001 9:05 pm

I]Am I correct in thinking that if I base my beliefs solely on the Bible, I am being closed minded, and if you base your beliefs on science then you are open minded.</i><BR><BR>No. If you base your beliefs on your _beliefs_, which is what you're actually saying, _then_ you're closed-minded. If I base my beliefs on what I can perceive and what I can make of it, then I'm a scientist.<BR><BR>Science is not a belief system. Science is not a faith. Science is an approach to understanding the world and how it works. <BR><BR>There are a handful of a priori assumptions that scientists do "have faith" in, but they're not exactly controversial. They're things like the radical notion that the universe is governed by the same laws and principles everywhere.<BR><BR>You're right about the wine, though. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Axordil
Mariner

 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 9:13 pm

The fossil record does not lie. It is there for all to see, a great and compelling "Doctoral Thesis of the Ages" which clearly shows how life evolved from simpler forms to more complex forms over millions of years, and how species changed in appearance and oftentimes branched off into two or more different species. Clearly life does evolve, and clearly it has done so over many hundreds of millions of years. Further, natural selection has been observed to be in action during recorded history, the breeding of livestock and other animals has been long practiced, and microorganisms in the laboratory have been seen to adapt, mutate, and become something wholly different when subjected to various environmental conditions.<BR><BR>Did man evolve from ape? No. Man evolved from earlier primates, but they are not to be confused with the present day ape.<BR><BR>Has life been created in a laboratory yet? No, although experiments conducted which simulated the theorized early conditions which likely existed on Earth soon after it was formed quite readily produced amino acids, which in turn came together as proteins and other essential building blocks of life. Eventually things called coacervates formed which actually grew and "reproduced" by division much like bacteria and cells do. Interesting. If that can be accomplished in a short time in the lab, just imagine what a billion years can accomplish!<BR><BR>Today there are breeds of dogs which are so dissimilar in size owing to centuries of selective breeding that reproduction between them would be impossible without extraordinary human intervention. In some ways this makes such breeds separate species, since by definition different species cannot interbreed.<BR><BR>Another subject. There seems to be frequent confusion about what exactly a scientific theory is. Colloquially a "theory" is just a wild-assed guess withh nothing much to back it up. Strictly speaking, however, a scientific theory is something which has stood the test of time and held up to critical scrutiny from all sides and been vindicated again and again. A theory is something which has been verified by various means, has made predictions, and had those predictions fulfilled by subsequent observations on the field (in this case usually the fossil record). A theory is much more solid than a hypothesis.<BR><BR>And someday science WILL yield an airtight, eyewitnessed example of a living species evolving into another species, and those who don't want to believe will find another excuse to deny the obvious. The noose has been tightening for over a century, and the mountain of proof backing up evolution has grown mightier year by year; yet still there is no shortage of people who fight tooth and nail against the concept and think Creationism ought to be taught in the public schools alongside the Theory of Evolution. Gads. Hell's bells, in just the past 20 years scientists have delved into the very DNA which makes up living things and is the engine of inheritance and change, and the independent cross-verifications which are happening every day are staggering. The Big Picture isn't coming together, it's already COME together! It's there for all to see.<BR><BR>Evolution is no lie. It's happening right now.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 9:16 pm

Annael, reading your posts were shining examples of one of the greatest flaws of the pathological condition known as groupthink. One of the key ways people who promulgate the evil of groupthink act is to take a complex issue and tear it into nitpicking little pieces as a way to cause their prefered opinion to dominate and, hopefully, prevail. What they do NOT do is look at the whole and realize that while any one point which is supported or attacked may or may not stand up on its own it is as part of a whole that the truth is learned. It is a "divide and conquer" tactic used in a debating manner. People on here have tried to answer your questions and your "points" and then you have refused to grant any of their arguments or rebutals ANY credence because it goes against your pre-concived opinion that you do not want changed. You are not asking people to help you see their side or to illustrate why your points invalidate theirs, you are not open to being shown to be wrong becasue you "have faith". To be a "debate" you have to be willing to see and open to accept flaws in your own arguments or points when they do not stand up just as other have to be open to the same thing. you are not after truth, you are after showing in your own mind why what you already believe is already "true".
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 9:16 pm

Let me get this strait: Since I put my trust in God, I'm closed minded and therefore bad. Since you put your trust in the things of this world you are open minded and therefore good.<BR><BR>Am I correct in my understanding of the ways things stand with you, Axordil?
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 9:28 pm

Falkeep,<BR>I was not trying to ask for people to prove their points. I was trying to demonstrate that each of us is taking a leap of faith when we say we believe the world came to be in this or that manner.<BR><BR>This leap of faith is a religion. Open your eyes, your beliefs that something is true, without actually having any proof to back it up is a religion.<BR><BR><b>Saying that it could happen is not the same as saying that it did. Once you say evolution from goo did happen you are entering the realm of a leap of faith, RELIGION!</b><BR><BR>Falkeep, why do you say that I am trying to prove Christianity correct. <b>I'm not saying Creation is correct, I'm saying to believe anything about creation is absolute truth, is a RELIGION</b><BR><BR>Have I made myself perfectly clear? <BR><BR>Or is there someone that was there and knows these things first hand?<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Falkeep, I'm not your dad!
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 9:30 pm

Annael wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>Let me get this strait: Since I put my trust in God, I'm closed minded and therefore bad. Since you put your trust in the things of this world you are open minded and therefore good.</i>"<BR><BR>Good and bad have nothing to do with it... and you are closed minded becasue your "trust" in God is apparently so fragile that you cannot stand to question it, to consider that, if he exists, that maybe he works in ways other than what you want to accept.<BR><BR>ANYTHING I believe in, I try to keep one controlling philosophy... "I may be wrong." As such, I do not believe what I believe because I will not let my believes be questioned, I believe what I believe because I question EVERYTHING I believe in and anything that does not stand up to that questioning I discard as being not-truth and not on the path to thruth.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 9:33 pm

Sauron,<BR>Just don't go hanging me for my beliefs, OK?<BR><BR>To tell you the truth, you seem just a little more angry than me. By the way, why does it bother you that others believe differently? Must I believe just like you do? You sounded just a bit like a fire and brimstone preacher! Just you preach from a different Holy Book.<BR><BR>Falkeep,<BR>I'm glad that works for you. Are you implying that this makes you somehow superior to me because I choose to put my faith in God? I don't see how my faith in God should cause you any grief. Am I not allowed to live as I choose?<BR><BR>By the way, when did I say evolution was absolutely wrong? All I said was that it might be wrong.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 9:45 pm

Annael, your faith and your beliefs give me no grief and no problems. You can belief whatever you want and it has no effect upon what I believe... just have resaons for your beliefs. if you have no reasons or if your reason is simply "I believe it becasue I believe it" then don't bother participating in debates or discussions because you have nothing to contribute, no enlightenment to impart, are not walking the path to truth and no one can contribute to you, impart enlightnemnt to you or help you walk the path to thruth. The dialetcical process is one where-by all involved can give to all others and can learn from all others.<BR><BR>Oh, and I am superior to no one and inferior to most. All I CAN say about myself is that I am always trying to learn more and become better (and have more to contribute to the quest for truth) that I do now.<BR><BR>Also, as far as evolution or creationism or any other specific idea of how all species ended up here now, I honestly don't care. Evolution makes sense to me becasue the evidence points that direction, but if it is ever shown to be wrong or if something else (even the Genesis story) is proven to be truth, I will have no qualms or problems ascribing to that. My beliefs are not matters of dogma and I have no vested interest in any of them "prevailing" or in being shown to be false. I just follow the path towards ultimate truth, nothing else.<BR><BR>BTW, if you have so much blind faith in the Bible and what it says, do you go to church? Do you pray where others can see you? Do you ever pray saying more than the words of The Lord's Prayer? Is so, you are in violation of the specific instructions of Jesus in Matthew 6 (from the Sermon on the Mount) and, as a result, you simply pick and choice what parts of the Bible and the words of Jesus you want to accept. What does THAT say about your faith?
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 9:56 pm

Annael,<BR>While it's true I have a seething loathing of religion in general, I do not let that influence the substance of my arguments or compromise the veracity of whatsoever I may say. Certainly my tone may seem somewhat combative, but then I've been arguing with fundamentalists about the merits of evolutionary theory since I was in high school (though I am not pegging you as a "fundamentalist" here, for I consider it a derogatory label). However, I find it interesting that most Christians do not question the legitimacy of most other scientific theories; nay, they only call foul with regards to evolution, precisely because it seems to run roughshod over what's written in the gospel.<BR><BR>It's also interesting that there's a direct proportion between learnedness in the sciences and atheism.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 9:59 pm

I believe your posts say alot about you. I am sorry you are so angry at God. <BR><BR>As for my faith.....<BR>I choose at this point not to cast pearls.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 10:05 pm

I love how Christians characterize anyone who doesn't cleave to the Bible as somehow angry and twisted in some way, and dole out what they deem to be some fitting modicum of pity. Have no fear, Annael, you really didn't get my goat, for I merely make an idly amused observation. You forget that to be angry with God I have to believe in Him first. I don't, however. Nor do I believe in the devil. And I feel free, happy, and quite well-adjusted for it.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 10:06 pm

Ah, and look! No pearls for this swine, but he has three swords! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 10:09 pm

What many christians and others who are VERY deeply religious do not realize is that it takes just as much faith to be an athiest as it does to be a devote believer. As a result, they usually attack the faith of others when they do not want their own faith the be called into question.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 10:14 pm

May well be so, Falkeep.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Wed May 23, 2001 10:27 pm

Annael, why is evolution so much less of a scientific theory than any other scientific theory? What on earth does it claim that any other scientific theory doesn't? Why can it not be taught along with theories about gravity (something we know very little about) and motion? Reproduction and other life processes? I don't understand how we can disregard one portion of science ( the theory of evolution ) which has been studied and upheld by many realms of science, and keep all the rest. We don't "see" atoms, we don't experience much of what science deals with first hand. Perhaps the very proof you are asking for is exactly the kind of proof that evolution theory can not provide because in doing so it would contradict the very tennents of the theory. <BR><BR>Studies in biology show many species in different stages of evolution. This can be seen in birds. Many species can interbreed creating hybrids. Others, while being very close in characters, cannot. Even better than that poor excuse for an example is that every (other) example in this thread has shown a different stage of evolution. What we cannot observe is the actual bada bing bada boom, there's your new creature. This would not be evolution.<BR><BR>Maybe you can help me with another problem I have. I was raised Catholic, and I have studied the Torah and other spiritual texts. What I don't get is the great realm of indigestibility between what science offers (in general) and what the texts offer. To me they are two different approaches to describing the world with vastly different purposes and mechanisms. Spiritual texts offer a world of deeper meaning through stories and metaphors that enable us to gain an overall sense of where we belong in the world. Science looks at cold measurable data and applies theoretical means, (statisitcs, calc,) in order to understand the intracate and specific processes which operate within the world. How does science contradict a spritual text? How does a spritual text contradict science? To me this is not possible. I have trouble understanding this. I don't know, maybe it is not relavent to this thread, but it makes me extremely nervous when we start talking about which theories of science we will and will not teach. I don't understand the basis of this reasoning. Please explain!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8651
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 11:07 pm

I was saying that Falkeep was angry at God, not you Sauron.<BR><BR>BTW, I'm a guy, not a female. You got me confused with someone else!<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Tuile,<BR>I have absolutely no problem with natural selection. It is a matter of fact. What is not a matter of fact is that all creatures evolved from a common ancestor. It is precisely the bada-bing-bada-boom that I have a real problem with. Not one person on earth today was there. The other things you mentioned all have application to ongoing science. There is merit in teaching science with a purpose. What is the purpose of indoctrinating youths into the principals of the Theory of Evolution, other than to say the Bible is wrong and we are right because....?(When everything about the event is just conjecture, not one person can prove it one way or the other)<BR><BR>As to your question about how is science contradict religion? I would think that would only be possible if you believe the texts as facts, not just guidelines. For instance Noah and the flood, if science can prove that the world was never completely underwater, then the story would have to be false. If God did not create each animal seperately, and did not create a Eve out of Adam's rib, then the Bible would be wrong. If the Bible is wrong, then it can't be the perfect Holy Book, Christians believe it to be. <BR><BR>I would agree that science does not necessarily need to conflict with religion. It just gets some people really mad when others say that what they believe is the truth and you are wrong, when it can't be proven one way or the other. Then they say that their beliefs are superior because it is based on predicting what might have happened based on what is seen. The actual problem is the jump from might have happened to did happen. Once that leap has been made, faith has taken over. Faith in what has been seen, the religion of humanism. Just look at Sauron's post, if that is not religious fanataticism, I don't know what is.<BR><BR>If you don't mind, I would like to ask a question: Do you believe that evolution is a fact and that the Bible could not possibly be right? I know Falkeep's answer, to him nothing is beyond doubt, but the truth is out there somewhere. Or do I have that wrong?
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 11:12 pm

ROFLMAO...<BR><BR>Annael, I have a GREAT relationship with God... it is religion I have serious problems with. There has never been anything worse for keeping people from God than organized religion. I myself had a "religious" experience in St. Nicholas's Church in Liverpool, England on December 6, 1978 and he and I came to an amazing understanding. Do not mistake depising religion and things done in the NAME of God with anger or hatred of God. They are two different things and never the twain shall meet.<BR><BR>Annael wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>If you don't mind, I would like to ask a question: Do you believe that evolution is a fact and that the Bible could not possibly be right? I know Falkeep's answer, to him nothing is beyond doubt, but the truth is out there somewhere. Or do I have that wrong?</i>"<BR><BR>Right, in the absence of a final incontrivertable truth, nothing is certain. Only when the final ultimate truth has provided the answer, all we can do is search for that truth and answer, whereever it leads us.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Gwen » Wed May 23, 2001 11:15 pm

<BR>You go Falkeep!! You are saying everything I want to say but don't have enough guts!!!!!!!
User avatar
Gwen
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4267
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2001 2:47 pm
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 23, 2001 11:21 pm

Oops, you're a different Annael, eh? The other Annael I know is indeed a "she". Ah well...no matter.<BR><BR>Anyhow, if you want my answer to the question you posed, I'll say that I have no doubts whatsoever in my heart and mind and the Bible is not the word of God. Not only that, I can't even force myself to believe in the Bible even if I wanted to and really tried. To me it seems too clear that the Bible was written by men long ago, perverted over time to suit the prejudices and convictions of various translators, and falls to us as a big book of fables and antiquated notions. A God is not the simplest answer to the question of creation, for one must then explain the question of God and His origins, and it seems to me to be a damn sight easier to believe that life, the universe, and everything brought itself about by way of natural laws than to believe that some omnipotent superbeing waved a magic wand and made it happen. In a way, the laws of physics ARE God. Only man has some psychological need (fear of death, mainly) to anthropomorphize these laws and sire a God in his own image.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 11:22 pm

Falkeep,<BR>You just think God uses people as pawns to do his dirty work. Once he is done with them, he just tosses them to the side. Or did I misinterpret your post on Judas.<BR><BR>This sounds like you have a great feeling for God.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 11:33 pm

Gwen,<BR><BR>My dad was an Episcopal Priest and I was always questioning thing. He got really mad one day when I was 6 and the Bishop was at out house having dinner. I had recently come across Matthew 6 (The Sermon on the Mount) and asked the Bishop why, given what Jesus instructs us to do and NOT do in that chapter, why we have Church services and big elaborate rituals and prayers. Dad got mad, I was sent to my room and i NEVER got an answer.<BR><BR>BTW, I beleive the Bible has been re-written and edited to sell a product to make people give up control of their own lives and minds to those in power in the religions (christianity AND judaism). In the story of Abraham and Issaac, I have a different take on what happened and the lesson we are supposed to take from it.<BR><BR>In the traditional story, as presented in the Old Testament, Abraham was a godly man who obeyed his God above all. When he was an old man, God rewarded Abraham with a son... Issaac... who was the light of his life. One day, God decided to test Abraham and commanded him to take his son up on the mountain and sacrifice him to God. Abraham went to do this but at the last minute, an angel sent by God stopped him and said he passed the test. This story is used to promote the role of religion as the dominant and controlling force in the lives of the believers. It is tailormade to creating blindly obedient slaves under the dominion of their religious leaders.<BR><BR>I do not buy it. Here is MY feelings on what really happened.<BR><BR>Everything was the same up to the test. The purpose of the test, however, was not to test his obedience to God, it was to show him that there is a line you do not cross, no matter how great and powerful the person or being is who gives you the order. He was SUPPOSED to say "NO, I will not sacrifice my son to appease you. Even my God cannot command me to do some things." Abraham, however, FAILED the test and took his son up to perform the sacrifice. God then had to send an Angel down to stop him from doing something so blind and stupid.<BR><BR>The lesson of Abraham and Issaac, I BELIEVE, is NOT to obey those in power in all things it is to think for yourself and not give up control of your life and your mind to others. Just my belief and theory... it can't be proven.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 11:47 pm

Annael wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>Falkeep,<BR>You just think God uses people as pawns to do his dirty work. Once he is done with them, he just tosses them to the side. Or did I misinterpret your post on Judas.</i>"<BR><BR>Annael, I prefaced that very plainly that that was my answer to those who want to find the answers biblically instead of historically. I do not accept the Bible as an actual historical accounting of things. I view it as a tainted document with an ulterior motive. What I really believe is, as I have also said before, is what the deist philosophy is... God created the universe and the rules by which it operates and he does not interfer. I believe that Jesus was a good man but not the Son of God (any more than the rest of us are). The efforts to make Jesus out to be a deity can be traced back to St. Paul (who WAS insane and dangerous). Paul even persecuted Jesus's family when they objected to what he was doing. Before Jesus, there were MANY MEssiahs... you see a Messiah was not a religious figure, it was a war leader. So I donot believe God had ANYTHING to do with the events of Jesus's life or death. But for those who want to turn to the Bible as an unnassailable repository of true events, I take the stance on God you are refering to because the view they have of God and Jesus from the Bible are ones that seem patently ridiculous to me. I am simply letting THEM choose the battlefield they want to debate on and debate them or discuss the issues on the basis of the Bible.<BR><BR>In my own belief, i would not drag God down into the petty and idiotic events that happen here.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby tuile » Thu May 24, 2001 12:02 am

Sheesh, I am a dork. I missed a whole page of posts! Sorry if my reply was a bit redundant. <BR><BR>Annael, that is a good question. I know I am guilty of assuming in my mind that evolution is a fact. I know I should hold it loosely, as a theory. However, it is confirmed to me everywhere I look. As for how I view the Bible, I think it is a marvelous piece of spiritual literature which is steeped in metaphors and stories. I think it is extremely valuable to people's lives. I also think other texts are just as valuable. Therefore, if a scientific theory happens to say something different than the Bible does, I don't think that renders the Bible false. The Bible is a different form of interpretation and is not true or false. It is not provable by scientific means to make that statement to my mind. Nor would I want it to be. Why would anyone want to know god? There's a point to the mystery... <BR><BR>I don't think that because a theory says something different than what the Bible says is in any way an attack upon the Bible. The Bible is not the only book out there explaining how the world began. There is no reason for science to attack a spiritual text. For that matter, quantum physics should be thrown out if evolution is, if that were the criteria for scientific discovery.<BR><BR>With regards to the not liking religion very much bit, I must say it is the politics of organized religions that have always bothered me. The interpretations of the texts to futher specific agendas... in looking at the early church, I found that quite beautiful and I wish that was more in the form of Christianity we see today. But that's me!!!<BR><BR>Annael, why would anyone be at the bada bing bada boom moment of evolution if it never occurs??? Only over time is anything "new" "created", or rather distinquished.
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8651
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Thu May 24, 2001 4:59 am

Hehe<BR>Sauron the Maia? What did happen with your diaries? Cool potent stuff if there was any <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Falkeep: At least, someone who thinks that Paul made a big mess with Christianism and put a great deal of perversion into it.<BR>And yes I totally agree with your view of the Bible: there's a huge lot of historical reports about all the Concils and how Emperors, Bishops and popes twisted it, rejected books and chapters, wrote and rewrote the Credo and similar happenings. The mere fact that Orthodoxs, Protestants and Catholics exist and are divided on some religious points should show that Bible is not perfect and can be used to prove something and another quite different thing.<BR>Annael: So God made sure that his word was preserved in our current Bible? Well, then I hope you're aware that people were <b>killed</b> in ancient and medieval times, to make sure that this version would survie and others would be destroyed. Not to mention the pervasive issue of <i>translating</i> the Bible from Greek, Hebrew, Latin into modern languages. If it's God's word, then what do you do? Do you want a literal word for word translation, with each english word in the same place that the Greek and Hebrew word has in the sentence in original text? And then, what do you do when a hebrew word may have TWO meanings?<BR>One of my best friends is studying Theology right now, and we studied some solid philology at Uni together before he went into Theology; well, he thinks that text interpretations and how people argue about that is too often a major joke, compared to the serious work done on Greek, latin and other similar ancient texts.
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Thu May 24, 2001 5:05 am

Tuile,<BR><BR>I would site my example of Jesus' first miracle to tell how someone might be there. <BR><BR>My question is that if it is only a theory and unprovable, as my wine theory, then why is it believed with such veracity? Why must it be true?<BR><BR>Don't have time for other issues, be back tonight probably.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Hama » Thu May 24, 2001 7:35 am

Not to put my spoke in here, but just to say that I have enjoyed this thread for the great many excellent points made. Like FB and Falkeep, I too have a great number of issues with the Bible. The rejection of certain gospels, the translation issues, the establishment of the Nicene creed. Jesters excellent posts about speciation saved me the bother also. Evolution may not be incontrovertible fact as yet, but it has more evidence going for it than a good many historical 'facts' have going for them. And yet no one has any bother about teaching history in our schools.<BR><BR>Hama.
User avatar
Hama
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4892
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 1999 10:10 pm
Top

Postby Pestilence » Thu May 24, 2001 7:57 am

Damn damn damn!!! I try to stay away from these stupid debates becasue I <i>know</i> that they are never resolved but I just can't help myself.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Anneal: 'My question is that if it is only a theory and unprovable, as my wine theory, then why is it believed with such veracity? Why must it be true?'<BR><BR>Becasue your theory isn't a theory, if it were then I could also "theorise" that a three legged blonde from the planet Marzipan beamed down from a giant turnip and turned the water into wine with technology completely beyond our understanding. You couldn't prove me wrong. I do not though (however unfortunately) have any EVIDENCE of this. For your theory you have one piece of (self proving, in your view) evidence: The Bible. Whereas Darwins best effort has thousands of seperate documents emanating from many different, unrelated sources and diciplines. Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, and your quite entitled to your faith but can you imagine this in a court of law. From the way your arguing no one would ever be sent to jail because it would be practically impossible to "prove" that the're guilty. Imagine a defendent with stacks of forensic evidence against him, the chances of it all being wrong are millions to one (although not impossible), in order to get himself off the hook he could simply say 'I didn't do it, it was an act of God'. This may be extreme but it's what you sound like from where I'm sitting.<BR><BR>Arrghh!! Why am I bothering with this? I'm just reiterating whats already been said. Anyway, your perfectly entitled to your beliefs and your faith which is un / fortunately (delete as appropriate) something I will never understand. But I think that everyone is capable of understanding science, I hope that includes you.
User avatar
Pestilence
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 9:10 am
Top

Postby JRRTfanatic » Thu May 24, 2001 8:02 am

Annael - I think the problem you might be having is that you are rightly questioning the validity of evolutionary theory, and are stating that you do not belive the evidence you have heard (which is fine) but you are not offering up any evidence to disprove it. As such no one is going to overturn it. You also seem to deire to set up creation theory - again without actually offering up any evidence. Similarly this will not happen precisely because there is no evidence for it - if you think that there is you may want to cite it here. The fact of the matter is that Evolution is a theory with much evidence to point towards it being corect, and you are right to question it - that is actually the basis of science. But untill you actually offer up alternatives with associated evidence you will get nowhere.<BR><BR><BR><BR><i>My question is that if it is only a theory and unprovable, as my wine theory, then why is it believed with such veracity? Why must it be true?<BR></i><BR><BR><BR>I would say that evolution has more evidence to support it than your wine theory. If you can provide more evidence to support your wine theory you might get somewhere.<BR><BR><BR>And wot pestillence said <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
JRRTfanatic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:47 am
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Thu May 24, 2001 8:41 am

Last comment on Annael:<BR>there are numerous holy books claiming how their own Gods created the world. Now, since you put your faith as as reliable as Evolution and all scientific theories, you should acknowledge that the ancient Hindus or Greeks creation myths are just as possible as your own, since all are found in some few written books, self-allegedly reporting the truth as it really happened, without providing <i>any</i> evidence.<BR>Thinking that the changing of water into wine was a miracle and really happened is frankly as reliable as picking any site liniked by crank.net and thinking there's any truth in it.<BR>
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests