Creation vs. Evolution

[Tacet_Blue]

Yep, I do knkow that. But I didn't say leeches did I? I just said bleeding. And in any case, they are used for a different purpose then what I was talking about. So, that's really not too relevant to what I was saying.

Blood was "letted" throughout the middle ages using leeches...I don't know of any other method?! Anyway that's beside the point.

You didn't answer my question as to why you thought your story of creation was any better than the one that I posted above.

 

[Swift]

Blood was "letted" throughout the middle ages using leeches...I don't know of any other method?! Anyway that's beside the point.

You didn't answer my question as to why you thought your story of creation was any better than the one that I posted above.

Do you consider the 1700's the middle ages? George Washington was bled quite a few times just before his death.

You already know my answer to your question. But again, you can't and won't see it. That's fine.

 

[Famine]

Do you consider the 1700's the middle ages?

Medically, yes.

The world's oldest medical journal is "The Lancet", first published in 1823.

So I ask again, where are all the peer-reviewed articles and double-blinded research programmes which proved blood letting through, as you claimed, the scientific method?


And I ask again again - I answered your questions. Can you please answer my earlier ones?

 

[Pako]

So we should just disregard everything in your argument now, then? Oh should we take it in to consideration but not take it seriously or hold you to your word?

And btw, your sig is 10 lines long.

LOL, You could disregard everything or nothing I have said in this thread. You know how it is. Don't want to get sued by some parents of a kid that killed himself just to prove that there's no life after death....

You must have a small monitor, I only see six lines....including the space.

 

[Swift]

Yes Famine, I beleive the scientific method IS falible and should not be excepted as a universal truth. Like, you can't go out to pluto. YOu can barely see it in a telescope. But we all believe it's there right? Asbestos, that was scientifically proven to be a great flame retardand was later figured out it actually caused cancer. That was the same scientific method correct?

 

[Famine]

What question are you answering? It certainly wasn't mine.

Pluto's discovery was independantly verified by observatories around the world. Not really the same as "research", although "research" which HAD been peer-reviewed indicated that Pluto (although not named as such) would be discovered.

Asbestos was not initially researched for teratogenic properties since its primary use was, as you say, as a heat retardant. Materials chemistry is not oncology. Its properties were as a result of, dare I say it, peer-reviewed research. Its manifest carcinogenic abilities were discovered as a result of... go on, guess.

In all cases, the scientific method was valid - unless you think that the scientific method which indicated a ninth planet/planetissimal which was then subsequently discovered was actually wrong? Or that the scientific method which showed heat retardant properties in asbestos was wrong? Or that the scientific method which showed asbestos inhalation to be a direct cause of mesothelioma is wrong?


My question, to refresh your memory, was:

I say again, you trust the scientific method enough as it is - for the computer you're at, the chair you're sitting on and even the technology used to produce the pages of the Bible you read. And yet when the scientific method crosses the path of something you believe in and says it is unlikely to be true, you throw science out of the window and rail against scientists for being "narrow-minded" and "ignorant" (yet more Ad Hominems). Do you not see the inherent conflict in believing in science when you want to yet decrying the SAME science when you don't want to believe it?

 

[Pako]

What question are you answering? It certainly wasn't mine.

Pluto's discovery was independantly verified by observatories around the world. Not really the same as "research", although "research" which HAD been peer-reviewed indicated that Pluto (although not named as such) would be discovered.

Asbestos was not initially researched for teratogenic properties since its primary use was, as you say, as a heat retardant. Materials chemistry is not oncology. Its properties were as a result of, dare I say it, peer-reviewed research. Its manifest carcinogenic abilities were discovered as a result of... go on, guess.

In all cases, the scientific method was valid - unless you think that the scientific method which indicated a ninth planet/planetissimal which was then subsequently discovered was actually wrong? Or that the scientific method which showed heat retardant properties in asbestos was wrong? Or that the scientific method which showed asbestos inhalation to be a direct cause of mesothelioma is wrong?


My question, to refresh your memory, was:

Not to jump in or anything but......

The scientific method and how it relates to the validity of the Bible is limited to our current technology. Perhaps some day..... Should we discount eye witness accounts of everything that Christ did while he was on this earth because our measuring stick isn't long enough? I choose not to, you can choose otherwise.

 

[Famine]

Even better...

The scientific method [...] is limited to our current technology.

That said, it's the science that is limited by technology, not the method.

Should we discount eye witness accounts of everything that Christ did while he was on this earth

I would discount eyewitness testimony from a ball game yesterday.

Remember the eyewitnesses who said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a 757? Or the ones who said they saw the plane "bank up sharply at the last second then disappear"?

Eyewitnesses blow and are EASILY the worst form - and most often dismissed in judicial proceedings - of evidence.

 

[Swift]

Do you not see the inherent conflict in believing in science when you want to yet decrying the SAME science when you don't want to believe it?

NOpe, for the reasons you mentioned before. NOt all sciences is directly connected. As you explained in the asbestos issue. Just because something is scientifically proven to do what they say it does, doesn't mean that it won't have an extreme effect on something else. Like the morning after pills in Europe and the deformed babies. I'm sure that went through the same peer-reviewed reasearch as other drugs.

My point is that science in and of itself, while very cool, not always consistant.

 

[Pako]

Even better...



That said, it's the science that is limited by technology, not the method.



I would discount eyewitness testimony from a ball game yesterday.

Remember the eyewitnesses who said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a 757? Or the ones who said they saw the plane "bank up sharply at the last second then disappear"?

Eyewitnesses blow and are EASILY the worst form - and most often dismissed in judicial proceedings - of evidence.

I would also agree that it is the science (or scientific outcome or result), not the method that is limited by our technology.

So you choose to ignore all the eye witness accounts of Christ. I can see where someone could mistake a plane for a missile…..long, shinny, flying in the air, explodes when it hits. Pretty tough to mistake a man in his early 30's dying on a cross, later to be seen floating into the sky as he ascended into heaven. But like I said, your choice.

I'm just saying to be open to the idea that something could be more than what you think. It's been said before, but here goes..... The earth was flat until we were able to prove otherwise. Has it always been flat? What is it when the instruments used during an experiment change the outcome of the results? Or better yet, what is it when the results change based on what we're looking for? I'm sure there's some quantum physics in there somewhere....

 

[Famine]

NOpe, for the reasons you mentioned before. NOt all sciences is directly connected. As you explained in the asbestos issue. Just because something is scientifically proven to do what they say it does, doesn't mean that it won't have an extreme effect on something else. Like the morning after pills in Europe and the deformed babies. I'm sure that went through the same peer-reviewed reasearch as other drugs.

My point is that science in and of itself, while very cool, not always consistant.

So, you're saying that research into the origins of life on Earth which gives out independantly verified results showing what the origins of life on Earth are ought to be discounted because research into a sleeping pill didn't take into account extreme possible side effects in an unrelated area?

Awesome.


Pako - Eyewitnesses can be convinced to see anything they want to see. You say it's easy to confuse a missile and a plane - fair enough (although one is FORTY times larger than the other). How easy is it to confuse a plane with nothing at all, in the case of the eyewitnesses who said it "banked up sharply at the last second and disappeared"?

Eyewitness accounts are rubbish. This is why they are never enough to secure criminal convictions on their own.


And funnily, the Babylonians - who had a flood myth of their own, mirroring the Noah story but predating it by a thousand years - had some interesting ideas about the shape of the Earth, as did the Greeks. They were, of course, the creators of the modern sciences, whilst the superstitious and somewhat religious mariners of Europe two thousand years later came up with the flat Earth myth of their own.

Science said the Earth was a sphere, roughly 24,000 miles across, two millenia before the Catholic Church "interrogated" anyone who said the Earth wasn't flat. Fancy that.

 

[PS]

Meaning "Creationism cannot and does not explain them, so I will discount any argument containing them."

Come on, Swift. In any discussion about what happened in the past you need to explore the past. If you're going to throw out any piece of the jigsaw which doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, we're not going to get anywhere, are we? Preconceived ideas = unscientific.

I should imagine that paleontologists care.



A theory which has a vast amount of... pure scientific evidence behind it. In fact everything in science IS a theory, rather than fact - and as I said earlier, you're happy to use the results of the scientific method to be on this site. What makes this section of the scientific method valid and the section dealing with things you don't agree with invalid?

If you're going to teach alternatives - in a science class - which do not have any basis in science, you may as well cancel all school because any idea which anyone has to explain anything is, according to your above argument, as valid as anything with vast amounts of scientific evidence to back it up.

Imagine Swiftschools:

"Why?"
"Because."
"Cool!"

Still, at least you'd have the best-educated kids on Earth - no-one would ever get anything but 100% in any test.

Well put.

LOL, You could disregard everything or nothing I have said in this thread. You know how it is. Don't want to get sued by some parents of a kid that killed himself just to prove that there's no life after death....
You must have a small monitor, I only see six lines....including the space.

Then I would disregard everything you said if he proved there was no life after death. Although there may be, as my neighbour saw on in our very house and a ton of wack **** has happened, I do not believe in the bible. While the after life and actual accounts have been easily recreated and many account proven to be fake, I see ghosts to be real. However, because the bible is based solely on witness accounts, contradicts itself many a time, does not have any sources illustrations or landmarked "proof", I count it simply as a fictitious book on over-the-top moral lessons. With some irrelevant stories thrown in to keep you entertained.

 

[Pako]

Archeologists are validating places and events as they were told in the Bible to have actually happened. That's pretty land marked I'd say. I'd love to be able to go back into time to see and document first had the events illustrated in the Bible. Unfortunately I cannot, however, as science progresses I am confident that even more of the Bible will be validated through our scientific method.

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Taken from this site: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml​

 

[Famine]

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

[...]

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

Yet some 1500 years after the 11th dynasty of the New Kingdom of Egypt, when not only the shape of the Earth was known, but also the polar circumference and Equatorial circumference (and the knowledge that they were different) to within 100 metres.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

A circle, of course, being a planar - or FLAT - object, totally removed from a 3-dimensional solid, like a sphere. It's a nice leap of faith, but a transparent attempt at reading something which isn't there even in the "original" Hebrew, let alone the interpreted English.


I can see the headlines... "Bible website makes unsupported claims shock!"

 

[emad]

Lets not forget that the church believed the world was a flat disk for nearly 1500 years

Let's also not forget that they held back scientific progress in almost all of Europe for that period of time. During the Renaissance, scientists had to import knowledge and books from northern Africa where the Muslim empire was.

Ooh, and also lets not forget the burning of countless libraries full of not only scientific books, but also vast amounts of literature by the Christians during the Reconquista.

Ok, I realize that pointing out something from more than 500 years ago is a bit of a low blow. The reason I point this out is because Christianity and many other religions are far too closed minded about anything their religious texts don't agree with. Just because some people take the bible in it's literal meaning, we're supposed to teach our kids in science class that the universe was created in 7 days? I don't think so. You have to keep in mind the time and context in which the religious texts were written in.

How you can discount something with a plethora of evidence backing it AND that was reviewed by scholars from around the world who all agree to it is beyond me. Sure, the Bible/Quran say that Jesus

performed many great miracles, but that's something that can neither be proven nor can it be disproved. Evolution however can. We see it happening in our own environments yet you want to ignore it?

 

[PS]

And not to mention that's a christian website; which is obviously biased towards its' own religion.

 

[Pako]

Yet some 1500 years after the 11th dynasty of the New Kingdom of Egypt, when not only the shape of the Earth was known, but also the polar circumference and Equatorial circumference (and the knowledge that they were different) to within 100 metres.



A circle, of course, being a planar - or FLAT - object, totally removed from a 3-dimensional solid, like a sphere. It's a nice leap of faith, but a transparent attempt at reading something which isn't there even in the "original" Hebrew, let alone the interpreted English.


I can see the headlines... "Bible website makes unsupported claims shock!"

Trust me, I am by no means a authority on Hebrew, but from what I can find (or not find) I cannot find a Hebrew word that describes a ball or sphere. Needless to say, Webster in 1913 uses the word sphere in defining compass.

Compass \Com"pass\ (k[u^]m"pas), n. [F. compas, fr. LL. compassus circle, prop., a stepping together; com- + passus pace, step. See Pace, Pass.]

1. A passing round; circuit; circuitous course. [1913 Webster]

They fetched a compass of seven day's journey. --2 Kings iii. 9. [1913 Webster]

This day I breathed first; time is come round, And where I did begin, there shall I end; My life is run his compass. --Shak. [1913 Webster]

2. An inclosing limit; boundary; circumference; as, within the compass of an encircling wall. [1913 Webster]

3. An inclosed space; an area; extent. [1913 Webster]

Their wisdom . . . lies in a very narrow compass. --Addison. [1913 Webster]

4. Extent; reach; sweep; capacity; sphere; as, the compass of his eye; the compass of imagination. [1913 Webster]
​

I mean....we can split hairs here if you want......

 

[Pako]

*snip*

performed many great miracles, but that's something that can neither be proven nor can it be disproved. Evolution however can. We see it happening in our own environments yet you want to ignore it?

I am assuming you are directing this towards me, if not I apologize.

I have never ignored evolution, as you say there is evidence in our own environment that supports it. What I do choose to ignore is the theory that a random cataclysmic event occurred which started the evolutionary process without any design behind it, and no higher-power guiding it. In nature we see that there is a beginning to everything, but with that beginning has to be a end to something else in order for something else to begin. Stepping away from science and looking at logical rules of deduction, what made the first thing that all other things evolved from? Surly you don’t think that it has always been and must conclude that it came from somewhere/someone who has always been. So would that something/someone be raw matter? Pure Energy perhaps? A higher power that designed/created us it his own likeness (maybe spiritual likeness, not physical likeness)? Science cannot even begin to imagine what the beginning was, but God said he was the Alpha and Omega.

 

[Pako]

And not to mention that's a christian website; which is obviously biased towards its' own religion.

Thanks for that contribution. I tried to find stuff under some of the Darwin links, but all I found were references to apes.....

 

[Swift]

So, you're saying that research into the origins of life on Earth which gives out independantly verified results showing what the origins of life on Earth are ought to be discounted because research into a sleeping pill didn't take into account extreme possible side effects in an unrelated area?

Awesome.

Famine, so now you're not willing to admit that the science that puts to use the scientific method has flaws. Cute. That's as bad as when you asked me the volcano question a few pages ago.

To believe you can get an infalible system from flawed beings(all humans) is rather strange, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for that contribution. I tried to find stuff under some of the Darwin links, but all I found were references to apes.....

that was pretty good Pako.

 

[Famine]

I mean....we can split hairs here if you want......

Sure can. The question is though, IF the word in Hebrew in that context was actually "compass", which can be stretched by definition to mean "sphere" (although that section of the definition is describing a metaphysical sphere of influence rather than a physical, tangible, 3 dimensional object), why did the Hebrew scholars who translated the Bible into English use the word "circle" as a direct translation and not "compass"?

Does this mean that their translation - a human translation - is incorrect in that respect? If so, in how many other respects?

Famine, so now you're not willing to admit that the science that puts to use the scientific method has flaws. Cute. That's as bad as when you asked me the volcano question a few pages ago.

I'm what now with a who what?

You seem to want to reject all study into the origins of life when they give answers to the origins of life, based upon study into how effective a sleeping tablet is NOT giving answers to how it could affect a foetus.

Put simply you think that because study into one thing doesn't give answers about another, unrelated aspect then study into another thing is invalid even though it gives answers about that thing. And that's a logical step in what world?

Study into electricity showed that you can run a TV off it. However it's taken several decades before research has been conducted into the effects of a high-volt, low-current overhead powerline on human tissue. Does this mean that you CAN'T run a TV off electricity?

To believe you can get an infalible system from flawed beings(all humans) is rather strange, wouldn't you say?

To believe a book is infallible despite being written by flawed beings and translated into other flawed languages by further flawed beings is even stranger, wouldn't you say?

 

[Swift]

Sure can. The question is though, IF the word in Hebrew in that context was actually "compass", which can be stretched by definition to mean "sphere" (although that section of the definition is describing a metaphysical sphere of influence rather than a physical, tangible, 3 dimensional object), why did the Hebrew scholars who translated the Bible into English use the word "circle" as a direct translation and not "compass"?

Does this mean that their translation - a human translation - is incorrect in that respect? If so, in how many other respects?



I'm what now with a who what?

You seem to want to reject all study into the origins of life when they give answers to the origins of life, based upon study into how effective a sleeping tablet is NOT giving answers to how it could affect a foetus.

Put simply you think that because study into one thing doesn't give answers about another, unrelated aspect then study into another thing is invalid even though it gives answers about that thing. And that's a logical step in what world?

Study into electricity showed that you can run a TV off it. However it's taken several decades before research has been conducted into the effects of a high-volt, low-current overhead powerline on human tissue. Does this mean that you CAN'T run a TV off electricity?



To believe a book is infallible despite being written by flawed beings and translated into other flawed languages by further flawed beings is even stranger, wouldn't you say?

Right, so putting lead in paint, asbestos in insulation in homes isn't related to public health? Right.

So you won't admit it. Cool...

About the bible, find a contratiction within itself and then you can call it fallible.

 

[JacktheHat]

Stepping away from science and looking at logical rules of deduction, what made the first thing that all other things evolved from? Surly you don’t think that it has always been and must conclude that it came from somewhere/someone who has always been. So would that something/someone be raw matter? Pure Energy perhaps? A higher power that designed/created us it his own likeness (maybe spiritual likeness, not physical likeness)? Science cannot even begin to imagine what the beginning was, but God said he was the Alpha and Omega.

Big bang theory, anyone?

In a nutshell:

1. BANG! (Universe explodes).
2. Universe expands as far as it can go.
3. Universe retracts.
4. !GNAB (Universe implodes).
5. Go back to step one and repeat. Infinitely.


Not quite the control mechanism that organised religion is and, as far as I'm aware, not responsible for any wars. But then you can't have everything...

 

[JacktheHat]

Right, so putting lead in paint, asbestos in insulation in homes isn't related to public health? Right.

So you won't admit it. Cool...

About the bible, find a contratiction within itself and then you can call it fallible.

Incest is against God's law according to the Bible, yes?

Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel, one killed the other and then begat the rest of humanity.

Is that a contradiction?

 

[Pako]

Sure can. The question is though, IF the word in Hebrew in that context was actually "compass", which can be stretched by definition to mean "sphere" (although that section of the definition is describing a metaphysical sphere of influence rather than a physical, tangible, 3 dimensional object), why did the Hebrew scholars who translated the Bible into English use the word "circle" as a direct translation and not "compass"?(1)

Does this mean that their translation - a human translation - is incorrect in that respect? If so, in how many other respects?(2)

*snip*

(1)I'm really not sure. Why do you think?

(2)I don't know if I would say incorrect, but perhaps lacking in meaning by our own language. Often words in Hebrew capture more detail and 'feeling' then what our english words can try to convey. That is why in a lot of Bibles they make reference to "Strong's" definition numbers which is a Hebrew lexicon.

An example I found online:
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html

Try looking up Isaiah 40:22

 

[Famine]

Right, so putting lead in paint, asbestos in insulation in homes isn't related to public health? Right.

The reasons for doing those things and the initial "research" into those things were totally unrelated to public health, yes.

You're saying science is unreliable because it doesn't answer questions it isn't asked?

 

[Pako]

Big bang theory, anyone?

In a nutshell:

1. BANG! (Universe explodes).
2. Universe expands as far as it can go.
3. Universe retracts.
4. !GNAB (Universe implodes).
5. Go back to step one and repeat. Infinitely.


Not quite the control mechanism that organised religion is and, as far as I'm aware, not responsible for any wars. But then you can't have everything...

You missed my point. Where did the universe come from? Where's step .5?

 

[DQuaN]

Ok, I'm going to try and throw a spanner in the works here.

I may be wrong about this (Famine will clear that up!) but some geneticists have predicted that in the next couple of hundred years, the number of blonde peope will decrease and eventually die out due to the recessive gene.

If this does happen, is this science? Natural selection? Evoloution? Or is it because god decided he didn't like blonde people and wiped them out?

 

[Famine]

(1)I'm really not sure. Why do you think?

Because they knew what they were doing and didn't see the need to twist every single word to fit a different meaning to prove the Bible is 100% accurate?

(2)I don't know if I would say incorrect, but perhaps lacking in meaning by our own language. Often words in Hebrew capture more detail and 'feeling' then what our english words can try to convey. That is why in a lot of Bibles they make reference to "Strong's" definition numbers which is a Hebrew lexicon.

An example I found online:
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html

Try looking up Isaiah 40:22

That's awesome stuff. Nearly every third word in every verse is highlighted with alternate meanings. So what, the original translators were too stupid to know context?

Come ON. The site you originally posted up is trying to say that the Bible said the world was a sphere by saying that a word, translated from Hebrew by Hebrew scholars centuries ago may have been a different word, depending on the context (and, for the hard of thinking, the context is RIGHT THERE on the page) could possibly mean another word which, when stretched to its limit, could maybe mean "sphere" (although not in a physical sense).


Read into that what you will. Or translate it into a foreign language, pretend some of the words mean something else and THEN read into it what you will.

And lastly, on the subject of English versions of the Bible coming with a Hebrew primer in case the original translators were too dumb to translate it properly, we have Swift, from earlier in this thread:

No, I don't read the ancient hebrew or greek manuscripts. Because I believe that God wouldn't have his word twisted.

 

[JacktheHat]

You missed my point. Where did the universe come from? Where's step .5?

Interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to. Here are some more questions I have no answer to:

So where did God come from, did he exist in 'nothingness' before he created the universe in six days? How long did he sit around in empty space? Where did dinosaurs come from? Why did God stop appearing to his people, why did he stop guiding them through personal appearances, be they in a cloud or burning bush? Why does homosexuality occur in nature when the bible says it's a no no?

I could go on...