OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Jake]

Yes, but....

Why/how is the universe here? What's it expanding in to? How is "scientific cosmology" (if I can coin the phrase) any more satisfying an answer when they openly admit that seeing before the Big Bang is impossible and that it thus appears the universe achieved it's massive energy from nothing. Nothing at all.

Sounds like a cop out answer to me. True, there may not be a G-d.... but... it's a workable solution to the problem. 'Course, paradise realities awaiting us on our bodily death... may well be as you say psychological coping with the idea of our own mortality.... But, the existence of an afterlife (in the religious sense of the word) is hardly determinative of there being or not being a creator G-d.

So... really... religion and science is in search of an answer to the same question. Why... how.. are we here.

Both "disciplines" have determined the same thing... We came from nothingness. If religion is unsatisfying in this respect (Creation ex nihlo) then so must be science.

Good post.

Allow me to clarify my position.

When I said I'm open to the concept of intelligent design I meant I'm open to the possibility of a being larger than ourselves, particularly in light of the flaws of evolutionary theory. That said, my skepticism in the concept of "god" is based on the notion that man's ability to understand who/what created life is beyond our comprehension. "Religion" suggests we know who "god" is, what he has done, and what he has planned for us (not to mention knowing what awaits us if we follow his rules, or not).

I don't believe that man has a clue about what "god", if he exists, has done or expects from us. Those who profess belief point to his words in books like the bible and the koran, ignoring the fact that those books were penned by humans. Then there comes the translations, over centuries and into different languages, making the idea that (insert one's book of faith here) represents the "word of god" extremely hard to believe if one actually thinks about it.

And "religion"? Don't get me started. Man has been making and changing the rules for years...

 

[Bleed S & G]

Off Topic

What are some of the more versed posters views on the Book of Enoch? Haven't gotten too into the Book of Jubilee yet but seemed interesting too..

 

[Gatorubet]

Gator:

I went back and read my post. I hope that you're simply using my statements as a sounding board, because I don't see anything that I wrote as being a promotion of a particular point of view. Anyway...

Yes, I was using it as a sounding board, and no, I was not attributing any views that I disagree with to you. My bad Muff.

Something I should have mentioned in my post is that the abiogenesis question to evolutionists (who do not address said point) is nothing more than a strawman. I learned this a long time ago when I WAS a YEC. I am no longer of such mind, and I've become more knowledgeable of points for both sides of the debate.

FTR, I am not a creationist in the common sense of the movement nor am I a "tow the line" evolutionist. I BELIEVE that the impetus behind the universe and all that is contained therein is from a Deistic basis. Meaning: I believe that G-d is behind all that there is in the physical universe. I believe that the natural laws of the universe are in place, because of said Deity. However, I also have no problem accepting common scientific considerations regarding the nature of ecological and animal development. My recent travels with work have taken me to the "Garden of the Gods" in CO, and Zion National Park in UT. Just seeing these topographical displays is enough to make one wonder about the antiquity of the planet we live on.

I agree with all of that.

Anyway... I believe that this universe has the age that has been ascribed to it. I believe that science IS a means to understand our world. I believe that the Torah can be in agreement with that science. BKB and I have have attempted to start a discussion amongst ourselves regarding a book that I turned him on to: Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It's an non-Christian look at how the Torah and science can agree about the existence of the universe. Now may be an opportune time to bring some of the discussion to the public setting.



I understand your angst with people of this type of mindset. I just hope you now realize that I am not one of them.

Again, my bad. I did not intend to ascribe all of that to you simply because it was your post that got me thinking about the issues.

LOL! I understand what you're talking about. Fortunately enough, for myself, I don't have to have everything understood. I've gotten to the point where I don't mind mystery, and it certainly has little to do with my faith.



So, was Tebow conceived or was he just there?

We Gators believe that he willed himself into existence.

 

[greatwhitenorth]

Originally Posted by Jake
Good post.

Allow me to clarify my position.

When I said I'm open to the concept of intelligent design I meant I'm open to the possibility of a being larger than ourselves, particularly in light of the flaws of evolutionary theory. That said, my skepticism in the concept of "god" is based on the notion that man's ability to understand who/what created life is beyond our comprehension. "Religion" suggests we know who "god" is, what he has done, and what he has planned for us (not to mention knowing what awaits us if we follow his rules, or not).

I don't believe that man has a clue about what "god", if he exists, has done or expects from us. Those who profess belief point to his words in books like the bible and the koran, ignoring the fact that those books were penned by humans. Then there comes the translations, over centuries and into different languages, making the idea that (insert one's book of faith here) represents the "word of god" extremely hard to believe if one actually thinks about it.

And "religion"? Don't get me started. Man has been making and changing the rules for years...

Good post, for the most part I agree with you. I would however, go a little further and say that i'm not open to the concept of intelligent design in the least bit. Intelligent design in my opinion is not a theory but is simply a belief, a theory needs to be substantiated by evidence and ID clearly lacks this. Yes, people will argue that the bible is all the evidence needed, but as you mentioned in your post the content of the bible and other books of faith are flawed. ID has no basis in fact and until someone can develop factual evidence I cannot justify being open to this belief.

 

[MaxBuck]

which is why the "evolutionists" are made to look so bad.

Why does it make "evolutionists" look bad? As I say, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, it only explains its development.

If you are saying atheists look bad, then that's something else altogether. There is no connection at all betwen atheism and promotion of scientific fact, which includes evolution. If you want to say atheists do not believe in the biblical creation story, that's self-evident.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why does it make "evolutionists" look bad? As I say, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, it only explains its development.

In this respect, and I almost posted this in my comments above (last page), it actually makes Stein/Creationists look bad because it evidences that they haven't acqiunated themselves with the issues enough to know which questions are important and which are irrelevant. (That's at best, at worst they're intentionally going off on important sounding, but ultimately irrelevant, tangents in an attempt to discredit)

 

[billmac91]

Why does it make "evolutionists" look bad? As I say, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, it only explains its development.

If you are saying atheists look bad, then that's something else altogether. There is no connection at all betwen atheism and promotion of scientific fact, which includes evolution. If you want to say atheists do not believe in the biblical creation story, that's self-evident.

You would have to watch the movie to see......Stein clearly blindsides his subjects with questions they aren't prepared for. That's how he makes "evolutionists" look bad. The point that there is no answer for how life started, yet scientists quickly rule out Intelligent Design and "expell" any scientists who support it is the premise for the movie.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but "evolutionists" are made to look bad while Intelligent Design scientists are made to look "expelled" for doing nothing wrong. It is what it is. That's the movie.

I thought it was very educational and raised many good points. I had no idea some well respected scientists actually consider Aliens as a possibility for life on earth, or that ever-changing crystals became complex enough to begin "life". I didn't realize that the theory of lighting striking a perfect combination of elements was now widely considered obsolete.

And many of the Intelligent Design scientists claimed no religous affiliation, and did not believe in the creatonist story out of the Bible. In fact, it seemed many of the Intelligent Design scientists believed evolution could be very real, but considered a "higher being" as the result of "life" because science cannot explain how life began. They would like the opportunity to have funding and grants for an opportunity at studying that. How you prove God created life wasn't discussed in the film, and I don't know what that would entail, but again-that's the movie.

I would recommend viewing it, but probably wouldn't recommend viewing it in the theater. It was educational, but less entertaining than I thought. It reminded me of a video that a substitute teacher would pop in when the regularteacher was out sick.

The most interesting thing to me was the correlation between Nazi Germany, American scientists, and Darwinism.

 

[MaxBuck]

The most interesting thing to me was the correlation between Nazi Germany, American scientists, and Darwinism.

I have not seen the movie and do not intend to. If the movie draws this "correlation," then I have lost much respect for Ben Stein. That is just way over the top.

 

[billmac91]

I have not seen the movie and do not intend to. If the movie draws this "correlation," then I have lost much respect for Ben Stein. That is just way over the top.

It's pretty simple when you think about.

Germans thought they were superior. They killed the handicapped, diseased, and wanted to exterminate "less superior" people. It was an attempt to create a superior race without disease, handicap, or primative people.

American Scientists were involved on a small level and Eugenics which was once popular is the 50's is an example. Planned Parenthood was also developed by the wife of a popular Eugenics scientist and was a way to abort "poor/uncivilized" babies.

I'm sure someone can fact check the movie, but it seemed legit.

I didn't mean to imply Ben Stein hated Darwinism because of Nazi Germany, it was just an interesting side-bar to the movie. And that is exactly what it was....a scientist brings up Nazi Germany and Darwinsim, Ben Stein goes to Germany and learns about why Hitler wanted to exterminate people. He/German scientists thought they could create a superior race because of Darwins' theory.

 

[Gatorubet]

I didn't mean to imply Ben Stein hated Darwinism because of Nazi Germany, it was just an interesting side-bar to the movie. And that is exactly what it was....a scientist brings up Nazi Germany and Darwinsim, Ben Stein goes to Germany and learns about why Hitler wanted to exterminate people. He/German scientists thought they could create a superior race because of Darwins' theory.

:tongue2:

 

[billmac91]

:tongue2:

:)....maybe so....The visit to a concentration camp is pretty moving though. I really do think there were scientists at that time who believed they could eliminate many of society's problems through natural selection. Again, a side-bar to the movie.

 

[Gatorubet]

You would have to watch the movie to see......Stein clearly blindsides his subjects with questions they aren't prepared for. That's how he makes "evolutionists" look bad. The point that there is no answer for how life started, yet scientists quickly rule out Intelligent Design and "expell" any scientists who support it is the premise for the movie.

That is becauser there is no "scientific" proof of intelligent design. You can't prove God ( or Gods) with a microscope or telescope. Any scientist worth his or her salt would agree. Now, as people of faith, they might have a belief in a Higher Being that is the author of life or physics or gravity or whatever. But that is not science, but Faith.

Not being able to prove God via scientific method does not negate God, and the refusal of scientists to agree that God created life does not equate to Atheism. Point is, "intelligent design" is not meant to prove the Hopi or Norse God as Creator, it is solely there to prove the Genesis account, not matter what the odd non-Christian intelligent design adherent says.

 

[billmac91]

That is becauser there is no "scientific" proof of intelligent design. You can't prove God ( or Gods) with a microscope or telescope. Any scientist worth his or her salt would agree. Now, as people of faith, they might have a belief in a Higher Being that is the author of life or physics or gravity or whatever. But that is not science, but Faith.

Not being able to prove God via scientific method does not negate God, and the refusal of scientists to agree that God created life does not equate to Atheism. Point is, "intelligent design" is not meant to prove the Hopi or Norse God as Creator, it is solely there to prove the Genesis account, not matter what the odd non-Christian intelligent design adherent says.

As one Intelligent Design scientist states...the story of Noah is laughable.

 

[Gatorubet]

As one Intelligent Design scientist states...the story of Noah is laughable.

Bill, I have to defer to you buddy. You've seen the movie and I haven't yet.

But I have a pretty good feel that the fellow is in a huuuuuge minority.

Might be wrong.

 

[billmac91]

Bill, I have to defer to you buddy. You've seen the movie and I haven't yet.

But I have a pretty good feel that the fellow is in a huuuuuge minority.

Might be wrong.

That is Ben Steins purpose though....prove Intelligent Design scientists aren't religious freaks, and evolutionists are wrong to stunt their research.

The reason they are wrong to stunt the research is because there is no answer for how life started. How can any theory be considered irrational or not worth further research? (Movies POV, not mine)

My biggest question leaving the movie was, if you want to say Intelligent Design scientists deserve scientific funding, then what are they researching? How do you research Intelligent Design? They/Ben Stein failed at that, probably becuase their(ID) research is as laughable as saying Aliens created life on earth.