| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2005 07:54:55 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
[quote=RonB]God said "Do that and you shall surely die and guess what? They did that, and they died. Some choices have greater consequences than others. I think that most thinking adults can understand that. |
You can't used the fact that people die as evidence that the Garden of Eden story is factual. |
So, what's the prevailing scientific theory of why people die? |
So do we have to prove that people don't die to prove creationism wrong...? [joke]
People die because our bodies are programmed to degenerate - systems fail - regular replacement improves the species as a whole (wiping out, among other things, outdated thought processes).
But seriously - debates over Adam & Eve's sin/life/death status are a little off point - you have to be a fundamentalist Christian to believe that the Biblical story of Adam & Eve in the first place. What if I believe in the Ovidian creation story which involves people being born from the earth after a flood? The Bible holds no special place, other than being the holy book of one of the major religions at the current time and in the Western world (currently being the place with greatest internet access). Ovid supposed that the world was a place of milk and honey, absent disease and labour, before the Ovidian fall. But the fall was not caused by the people, but by giants warring with the gods (a story now attributed to the early discovery of whale, elephant or dinosaur bones/fossils).
I say again - why do Christians believe that their creation story has primacy over other creation stories (earlier and later, and in the face of contravening evidence in the case of the scientific explanation). It must be "blind" belief, ignoring or dismissing all other possibilities without substantive reason.
Creationism is not a solution that people naturally arrive at as the logical, or ultimate solution in the modern day (at least not in the literal Biblical sense). Believers must have been taught or convinced by persuasive means. I oppose institutionalising those persuasive forces.
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 19:59:55. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 08:16:32 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I say again - why do Christians believe that their creation story has primacy over other creation stories (earlier and later, and in the face of contravening evidence in the case of the scientific explanation). It must be "blind" belief, ignoring or dismissing all other possibilities without substantive reason.
Creationism is not a solution that people naturally arrive at as the logical, or ultimate solution in the modern day (at least not in the literal Biblical sense). Believers must have been taught or convinced by persuasive means. I oppose institutionalising those persuasive forces. |
An interesting article I posted earlier on those questions/observations Viruses of the Mind |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 08:32:52 PM · #353 |
| Interesting article, MadM. My own belief is that organised religions(and many other things) are products of the weaknesses of the human mind. Regardless of agreement or disagreement with that, I would be interested from an opposition member (drawing up the lines) in an explanation as to why the Christian belief has any primacy. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:26:11 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
God said "Do that and you shall surely die and guess what? They did that, and... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...they DIDN'T die. They were cast out of the garden and continued to live. They only way to view this prophecy of death as true is to claim that our hapless diners would have otherwise lived forever, or at least much longer than the "normal" lifespan we see in similar animals. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Your response is amazing. ... the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die |
MY response is amazing? You're saying that the serpent's prediction was right and God's was wrong. |
Actually I was amazed that thousands of years after Satan ( the serpent ) told Eve "Ye shall not surely die", you come along and lend support to Satan's argument with your "they DIDN'T DIE". The similarity struck me as amazing. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 10:44:28 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Interesting article, MadM. My own belief is that organised religions(and many other things) are products of the weaknesses of the human mind. Regardless of agreement or disagreement with that, I would be interested from an opposition member (drawing up the lines) in an explanation as to why the Christian belief has any primacy. |
I expect the "opposition" will respond that the bible is the word of God. Do they ever propose any other explanation? In fact, is it possible to explain all the outlandishness in any other way?
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 22:53:49. |
|
|
|
04/13/2005 11:22:05 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...I was amazed that thousands of years after Satan ( the serpent ) told Eve "Ye shall not surely die", you come along and lend support to Satan's argument with your "they DIDN'T DIE". |
Any support came from the bible, not me. Can you really dispute that they continued to live AFTER touching and eating the fruit? No matter which version or translation you choose, it doesn't appear that anybody was cast out of the garden in a casket.
Message edited by author 2005-04-13 23:26:32. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:04:45 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
God said "Do that and you shall surely die and guess what? They did that, and they died. Some choices have greater consequences than others. I think that most thinking adults can understand that. |
You can't used the fact that people die as evidence that the Garden of Eden story is factual. |
So, what's the prevailing scientific theory of why people die? |
Could you be more clear? I just want to make sure that I have this correct. Do you, in fact, contend that the fact that people die is evidence for the veracity of the story of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden in the book Genesis in the Christian Bible? Please, I just want to make absolutely sure. |
I contend that reason people die is a direct result of the actions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
But enough of MY theories. I would like to hear the scientists reasoning of why people die. And to be clear, I mean "natural" deaths, not those resulting from auto accidents, cancer, etc. Just death due to old age. "Old Age" in and of itself is not a good scientific reason. I want to know what the causative factors are, as determined by scientists. After all, they have been able to observe death firsthand for thousands of years. Surely they know the reasons by now. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:07:15 AM · #358 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
People die because our bodies are programmed to degenerate |
Thank you for proving my point. Our bodies are PROGRAMMED. So, if not God, then who did the programming? |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 07:12:36 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
...I was amazed that thousands of years after Satan ( the serpent ) told Eve "Ye shall not surely die", you come along and lend support to Satan's argument with your "they DIDN'T DIE". |
Any support came from the bible, not me. Can you really dispute that they continued to live AFTER touching and eating the fruit? No matter which version or translation you choose, it doesn't appear that anybody was cast out of the garden in a casket. |
You keep insisting that they didn't die. But YOU, because you don't believe, only know of one death - physical death. You are right - they did not die physically at once. But there is also spiritual death, and that is what they suffered. Likewise, because you do not believe, you only know one birth - physical birth. But there is also spiritual birth, and that is why believers are said to have been "born again".
John 3:3-7 3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 07:16:29. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:33:56 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Interesting article, MadM. My own belief is that organised religions(and many other things) are products of the weaknesses of the human mind. Regardless of agreement or disagreement with that, I would be interested from an opposition member (drawing up the lines) in an explanation as to why the Christian belief has any primacy. |
I expect the "opposition" will respond that the bible is the word of God. Do they ever propose any other explanation? In fact, is it possible to explain all the outlandishness in any other way? |
You expect wrongly.
I do believe the Bible is the word of God. That much is true. But to say that Christians believe creationism should have primacy isn't. Most Christians that I know (and I know a lot of them) don't feel that creationism is the only thing that should be taught. They simply want fair views of each. Or at the very least acknowledgment that there are other views.
Judith, earlier in the thread you mentioned something about what the textbooks teach. As an educator, I know what the books/materials we use teach. In one instance, evolution is the only source of origin given. It is taught as solid, validated, no errors fact. It is not stated to be a theory/hypothesis/educated guess/belief. It is the only way it could have been done. (Just as an aside, when I use this source for this particular class, the students are required to find at least two other explanations for the beginning of life/earth and write about them).
Another source lists evolution and the Big Bang as the two possible explanations.
I have no problem with evolution being taught, as long as those doing the teaching recognize that there are other ideas out there. The only problem I have is when evolution is heralded as the answer, and if you don't believe in it, then you must be a weak, simple-minded, religious fanatic or something.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:53:24 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I contend that reason people die is a direct result of the actions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
But enough of MY theories. I would like to hear the scientists reasoning of why people die. And to be clear, I mean "natural" deaths, not those resulting from auto accidents, cancer, etc. Just death due to old age. "Old Age" in and of itself is not a good scientific reason. I want to know what the causative factors are, as determined by scientists. After all, they have been able to observe death firsthand for thousands of years. Surely they know the reasons by now. |
I find it difficult to believe that you donât see the flawed reasoning in your argument. The book of Genesis was written around the 10th Century BCE. Even you would agree that people had been dying for thousands of years before Genesis was written. The Genesis story makes the prediction that people would die after it was a known fact that people do die. Itâs circular reasoning. Hereâs how I see your logic:
Fact: All living things are know to die before the Book of Genesis is written.
Fact: Genesis contains a story that seeks to explain why all living things die.
Conclusion: All living things die, therefore the Genesis account of the reason for death is true.
As to scientific explanations of death due to old age, I donât know, but Iâm sure youâre aware that because science currently has no explanation for an event that your position is not automatically correct. That would be a âGod of the Gapâ explanation and, in the long run, as Iâm sure you're aware, a theologically degrading position to take.
Edited: To make the "Conclusion" section more concise.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 09:56:15. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 08:57:44 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...who did the programming? |
...or what. Show me anything tangible that doesn't wear out eventually. Everything physical has a lifespan- two weeks for a housefly, 80 or so years for people, billions of years for stars, and a bit longer for this thread. Ironically enough, death itself is part of the evolutionary process for living things. If there was no survival advantage because nothing ever died, then there would be no natural selection to drive the process. Are you saying that man alone was immortal, while everything else (including the planet he lives on) is temporary, or that eating the fruit caused EVERYTHING in the universe to die? Oh wait... it was a spiritual death. You are asking legalbeagle to explain physical death scientifically in one breath, then saying it wasn't a physical death in the other. Pick a story before you try to defend it.
Originally posted by RonB:
...YOU, because you don't believe, only know of one death - physical death. |
So if the bible says that the sky is yellow and we look up and see that it's blue, your solution is to redefine yellow so that it can't be tested and proven wrong? How convenient.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 10:51:38. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 09:04:28 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
As to scientific explanations of death due to old age, I donât know, but Iâm sure youâre aware that because science currently has no explanation for an event that your position is not automatically correct. |
Actually, we're pretty close to knowing EXACTLY what causes death. We've found the mechanism that allows cells to regenerate indefinitely, and various experiments have extended the lifespan of mice and fruit flies WAY beyond normal limitations.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 09:18:38. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 11:30:03 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
As to scientific explanations of death due to old age, I donât know, but Iâm sure youâre aware that because science currently has no explanation for an event that your position is not automatically correct. |
And, likewise, since Science can provide no answer OTHER than than the Genesis account, my position is not automatically false, either.
Oh, and by the way, it wasn't the Adam & Eve account that first recounted the reduced life expectancy of man, it was part of the Noah account.
Genesis 6:3 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
It's just "bad living" that has effectively reduced that.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:02:54 PM · #365 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...Science can provide no answer OTHER than than the Genesis account... |
I already gave some answers. Merely claiming that science can't do something is a baseless assertion.
Originally posted by RonB:
....My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. |
So basically, people are flesh and bone, and they die just like everything else. Ergo, Adam would have died anyway when he was older (fruit or no fruit), unless he wasn't flesh before. Is that your new claim- that he was made of something else- sort of a clay and rib recipe perhaps? Note that our "bad living" has gotten worse, but our lifespan has improved from about 35 years to 70+. Bring on the bad living!
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 12:04:25. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:03:13 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, likewise, since Science can provide no answer OTHER than than the Genesis account, my position is not automatically false, either. |
Are you intentionally missing the point or are you actually missing the point? I didnât say your circular reasoning makes your position automatically wrong. I said you canât use circular reasoning to support your position.
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and by the way, it wasn't the Adam & Eve account that first recounted the reduced life expectancy of man, it was part of the Noah account.
Genesis 6:3 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
It's just "bad living" that has effectively reduced that. |
I think we can agree that this is not relevant to our current discussion.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:35:06 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Interesting article, MadM. My own belief is that organised religions(and many other things) are products of the weaknesses of the human mind. Regardless of agreement or disagreement with that, I would be interested from an opposition member (drawing up the lines) in an explanation as to why the Christian belief has any primacy. |
I expect the "opposition" will respond that the bible is the word of God. Do they ever propose any other explanation? In fact, is it possible to explain all the outlandishness in any other way? |
You expect wrongly.
I do believe the Bible is the word of God. That much is true. But to say that Christians believe creationism should have primacy isn't. Most Christians that I know (and I know a lot of them) don't feel that creationism is the only thing that should be taught. They simply want fair views of each. Or at the very least acknowledgment that there are other views.
Judith, earlier in the thread you mentioned something about what the textbooks teach. As an educator, I know what the books/materials we use teach. In one instance, evolution is the only source of origin given. It is taught as solid, validated, no errors fact. It is not stated to be a theory/hypothesis/educated guess/belief. It is the only way it could have been done. (Just as an aside, when I use this source for this particular class, the students are required to find at least two other explanations for the beginning of life/earth and write about them).
Another source lists evolution and the Big Bang as the two possible explanations.
I have no problem with evolution being taught, as long as those doing the teaching recognize that there are other ideas out there. The only problem I have is when evolution is heralded as the answer, and if you don't believe in it, then you must be a weak, simple-minded, religious fanatic or something. |
Hi, karmat. You claim that you and/or most Christians you know don't think that the idea of creationism should have primacy in terms of what's taught in science classes in the schools. If you say so for yourself, I take you at your word. However, the goal of RonB and many other fundamentalists is quite different. From an article I posted earlier, quoting a paper published by the Discovery Institute, a think-tank dedicated to promulgating the "intelligent design" movement: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The phrase "replace it" is key in that sentence, and this is really the goal of the legislation and lawsuits now ongoing in many states in the country. Also key is the phrase "Christian and theistic convictions," which points to what "intelligent design" and creationism really are, a set of religious beliefs, not science at all.
So the question for me is, first of all, should religious beliefs be taught at all in the public schools? I don't have a problem with legalbeagle's suggestion that there might be a place for religious education classes where one can obtain a sort of overview perspective of the world's major religions. I took classes like that on the college level, and those classes were rightly labeled "philosophy." Should religious belief be taught in science classes and labeled "science"? In my opinion, the answer is absolutely not! As many others have stated in this thread, there is no objective evidence that the Biblical creation story is accurate, and in fact it flies in the face of the theory of evolution, a theory for which there is much objective evidence. The world of science as a whole rejects creationism and intelligent design as science. In the words of John H. Marburger III, President Bush's science advisor and director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy: "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory," and "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic," and "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology. Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution."
Now, in light of the fact that there is no objective evidence for the accuracy of the Biblical creation story, and in light of the fact that the world body of scientists has taken a stand against labeling creationism and intelligent design "science", can you tell me why these religious beliefs (intelligent design and creationism) should be taught as science in science classes?
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 12:38:30. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:56:42 PM · #368 |
Some people simply do not study aparently. Why not read up on Intelligent design and then take a look at the Pseudoscience and Junk science thats used to support it.
Creationism/Intelligent design are not science and should not be taugt in science classes. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 12:57:10 PM · #369 |
| I'd just like to point out that RonB has studiously avoided responding to legalbeagle's question about why the Christian creation story should be accorded primacy over others (which he clearly believes should be the case). The reason he's not answered the question is because he can only do so with circular reasoning, by reference to the bible, by saying that the bible is the word of god and therefore it must be correct. There is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, however, that he can point to in the scientific literature. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 01:49:29 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Hi, karmat. You claim that you and/or most Christians you know don't think that the idea of creationism should have primacy in terms of what's taught in science classes in the schools. If you say so for yourself, I take you at your word. However, the goal of RonB and many other fundamentalists is quite different. |
Please provide evidence to support the charge you make against me in that last sentence, or retract it. I'm speaking particularly of the reference to it being MY goal, not "many other fundamentalists".
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 14:52:36. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 01:58:23 PM · #371 |
Do you deny it?
Funny how, when it comes to the small things, you require evidence and standards of proof that you wouldn't ever require of yourself when it comes to the big things, like explaining the origins of life.
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 14:53:38. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 02:52:08 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Do you deny it? |
Absolutely. But you made the declaration in such a way that no one would draw any conclusion other than that it was based on some kind of factual evidence, so please either provide that evidence, or retract the statement. Although the discussion about creation / evolution is open to debate, with neither side able to "prove" their case, your charge about my goals is not - they are either conjecture and should be stated as such, or they must be justifiable. Libel isn't libel if it can be shown to be true. But I don't think that you can prove that your statement is true - hence I consider it to be libelous. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 02:58:32 PM · #373 |
| I won't retract it, because it can be inferred from everything you've said in this thread. If you deny it, then simply state your position, as karmat did. There's no need to play games. And please stop trying to change the subject. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 03:01:38 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Although the discussion about creation/evolution is open to debate, with neither side able to "prove" their case, |
That statement is a matter of your opinion. Most scientists and probably most of the world's population would not consider this discussion open to debate. |
|
|
|
04/14/2005 03:33:33 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I won't retract it, because it can be inferred from everything you've said in this thread. If you deny it, then simply state your position, as karmat did. There's no need to play games. And please stop trying to change the subject. |
Please show me how your statement can be inferred from this post, that I made on 4/10/2005 at 02:02:15 p.m.
Originally posted by RonB:
You do realize don't you, or am I assuming WAY too much, that "we" are not arguing for EQUAL TIME in the American science class. All we are arguing is for the CORRECT teaching that macro-evolution is a THEORY, and not a FACT - at least not yet it isn't. You don't have to teach anything about religion or theology or creationism at all. Just stop teaching theories as though they were fact. And, fwiw, that's all the Georgia legislature requested - a little sticker saying that macro-evolution was a theory. |
NOW, will you retract your libelous statement?
Message edited by author 2005-04-14 15:33:59. |
|
