Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 176 - 187 of 6,170
Posts 176 - 187 of 6,170
Which explanation does not solve the problem of ultimate origins, of course, but I don't think that was the criticism.
It really *is* pantheism, isn't it? I mean, a "mono-panistic" idea, and definitely not an anthropomorphic one, but not a lightning-god one either. Not that I see anything wrong with pantheism. Just that I don't regard it as outside the realm of "needlessly multiplied entities".
It really *is* pantheism, isn't it? I mean, a "mono-panistic" idea, and definitely not an anthropomorphic one, but not a lightning-god one either. Not that I see anything wrong with pantheism. Just that I don't regard it as outside the realm of "needlessly multiplied entities".
Some of what is being discussed I find to be beyond my ken, but I do want to query something. Pi's suggestion that the Ark contained every genera of creature which have since evolved into the various species in the time since. Noah's flood is considered to have occurred somewhere between three thousand years BC and (according to one group of scientists) about five hundred years after the last ice age in the Black Sea (in fact caused by the end of the ice age). Would this be considered to be a long enough time for the kind of divergence we're talking about? Is five to fifteen thousand years enough time for one group of snakes to evolve into anacondas, cobras, carpet snakes and taipans?
I know that among humans new "races" can develop very quickly given isolation and limited population.
Mr. Crab -- What I call horizontal evolution occurs by genetic variation due to selective reproduction. All the genes were there to begin with. It is one thing for lions to become faster to better chase gazelles. It is another thing for lions to grow wings in order to chase birds.
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" (For the non-Hebrew speakers on the board that means, "Hear oh Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Mr. Crab -- What I call horizontal evolution occurs by genetic variation due to selective reproduction. All the genes were there to begin with. It is one thing for lions to become faster to better chase gazelles. It is another thing for lions to grow wings in order to chase birds.
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" (For the non-Hebrew speakers on the board that means, "Hear oh Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Eugene--In fairness, I do seem to recall that I was giving rather bot-style answers the first time we chatted. I was just born and cant speak well yet. 
Corwin--Though I'm not sure about the snakes, a few thousand years is plenty of time to see new speciation within a genus, especially if small groups are isolated, in which case only the characteristics of that group will be passed on. Incidentally, there is some interesting research that suggests that the global flood may have caused the ice age rather than the other way around.
Mr. Crab--I'm not sure I follow. How can "the entity" be "contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles" if "nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism"? Isn't that a contradiction, or did I miss your meaning?
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
Regarding speciation, I don't have time right now to get into all the basic principles of genetics, but look how much you can do with the genetic material in two dogs. All the information was present originally, but by selectively breeding we can bring out certain traits. That's "natural selection," or "horizontal evolution" as Eugene puts it. No new information (thus, no "Evolution") has occurred.
Corwin--Though I'm not sure about the snakes, a few thousand years is plenty of time to see new speciation within a genus, especially if small groups are isolated, in which case only the characteristics of that group will be passed on. Incidentally, there is some interesting research that suggests that the global flood may have caused the ice age rather than the other way around.
Mr. Crab--I'm not sure I follow. How can "the entity" be "contemporaneously the creator and created but not simultaneously aware of those two roles" if "nothing can hold multiple consciousnesses at once even if they all exist in the same organism"? Isn't that a contradiction, or did I miss your meaning?
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
Regarding speciation, I don't have time right now to get into all the basic principles of genetics, but look how much you can do with the genetic material in two dogs. All the information was present originally, but by selectively breeding we can bring out certain traits. That's "natural selection," or "horizontal evolution" as Eugene puts it. No new information (thus, no "Evolution") has occurred.
Just to give credit where credit is due, it was rexmundi who first used the terms "horizontal evolution" and "vertical evolution" on this board, although I'm sure he didn't invent them. :-)
well I guess we all understand why creationism and evolution are subjects of heated debate. Personally I do not think that people are going to hell because they believe one theory or another. There are a lot of things natural supernatural etc. that we do not yet understand. These is for the christains here, which I am one of: There are a lot of debatable things in the bible and we are not suppose to argue about debatable things. The important message is one of hope, love and faith thru Gods Son not whether or not we evolved from monkeys and how long it took.
I typed a reply to this earlier but the server started having problems and I couldn't post it. I'm studying for a final exam so I'll try again in a day or two.
This is something of a scatter shot response since I'm picking up on a number of things from the last few responses.
Pi: I'd be very interested to hear a bit more about this idea of the flood causing the ice age rather than the other way around if you've got the time or the inclination. I would also be prepared to give an explanation of the Black Sea theory (as much as I can remember), as a source for Noah's flood if anyone is interested.
Eugene: A thought regarding horizontal evolution. Wouldn't selective breeding actually be counter productive to species survival. By narrowing the gene pool down, certain traits come to the fore which would certainly be advantageous, but so do certain weaknesses and susceptabilities. It is diversity that gives a species the best chance of surviving disruptive events. I'm thinking of cheetahs here, who have been reduced to a couple of isolated populations across Africa, and as a result scientists believe that as a result any nasty instance of disease could wipe them all out, because genetically they are all so similar. Breeding of close kin, as demonstrated in our own species as much as any other, also leads to congenital defects and general vulnerability to disease (at least 90% of the reason for the taboo on cousins/siblings marrying in most societies is based on evolutionary necessity. [The other 10% is the eeeew gross! factor, also known as the Luke-Leia factor]).
I'm not sure if all of the last paragraph made sense, but I think that if I were to go back and try to make sense of it I would begin bleeding from the ears. So, moving on . . .
ladydyke: I agree with you. It is the ideas of the bible we should hold to, not the strict word for word of it. Also, further to your point about people not going to hell for believing evolutionary theory one way or the other, I say that a god who would send someone to hell just for being an atheist or a believer in ideas that on some level challenge religious doctrine is not a god I could believe in.
Pi: I'd be very interested to hear a bit more about this idea of the flood causing the ice age rather than the other way around if you've got the time or the inclination. I would also be prepared to give an explanation of the Black Sea theory (as much as I can remember), as a source for Noah's flood if anyone is interested.
Eugene: A thought regarding horizontal evolution. Wouldn't selective breeding actually be counter productive to species survival. By narrowing the gene pool down, certain traits come to the fore which would certainly be advantageous, but so do certain weaknesses and susceptabilities. It is diversity that gives a species the best chance of surviving disruptive events. I'm thinking of cheetahs here, who have been reduced to a couple of isolated populations across Africa, and as a result scientists believe that as a result any nasty instance of disease could wipe them all out, because genetically they are all so similar. Breeding of close kin, as demonstrated in our own species as much as any other, also leads to congenital defects and general vulnerability to disease (at least 90% of the reason for the taboo on cousins/siblings marrying in most societies is based on evolutionary necessity. [The other 10% is the eeeew gross! factor, also known as the Luke-Leia factor]).
I'm not sure if all of the last paragraph made sense, but I think that if I were to go back and try to make sense of it I would begin bleeding from the ears. So, moving on . . .
ladydyke: I agree with you. It is the ideas of the bible we should hold to, not the strict word for word of it. Also, further to your point about people not going to hell for believing evolutionary theory one way or the other, I say that a god who would send someone to hell just for being an atheist or a believer in ideas that on some level challenge religious doctrine is not a god I could believe in.
You have some good points Corwin; if I were a biologist I could probably discuss them in a coherent fashion.
But let's make something clear, shall we? God could send us all to Hell tomorrow, and perfect justice would be served. That is what we deserve for our sin. Now God is loving and didn't want to do this -- so He devised a plan by which sinners could be forgiven. Coming into this world as a man, He lived a perfect life and then died, taking upon Himself the penalty for our sin. It is because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that forgivness of sins is possible. Only through Him can anyone be saved. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you try to accept the "ideas of the Bible" without what it says, "word for word," how are you going to determine what those ideas are? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says, who is to say what it does mean?
But let's make something clear, shall we? God could send us all to Hell tomorrow, and perfect justice would be served. That is what we deserve for our sin. Now God is loving and didn't want to do this -- so He devised a plan by which sinners could be forgiven. Coming into this world as a man, He lived a perfect life and then died, taking upon Himself the penalty for our sin. It is because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that forgivness of sins is possible. Only through Him can anyone be saved. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you try to accept the "ideas of the Bible" without what it says, "word for word," how are you going to determine what those ideas are? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says, who is to say what it does mean?
I never said that we could not take the bible word for word. But no one speaks or really understand biblical hebrew and aramaic, and we do not completely understand the customs of the time it was written (yes we know some of them but not all) to be jumping to conclusions. For example when the bible say a eye for a eye does that mean we can met out our own judgement against others? No because it also say revenge is mine, says the Lord. All anybody can do is to take the bible as a whole and interpret it using the whole context that a verse is put in. Taking one little verse out of context is what causes disscention and errors in biblical truthes. That is the biggest problem about some so called christains, they find a verse and jump on it while overlooking the context it was in. The also argue about things that are not important for our or anyone elses salvation. All this bickering between christains causes people who might be interested to turn the other way. The real message is of Jesus God's only begotten son who died for our sins and rose again from the grave and acended into heaven. The whole Bible is about who God is, His relationship with us and how God loves us. As far as I am concerned this disscusion is not helping other people come to know the lord so I am ending my part in it.
While I agree that the Gospel is of primary importance, I do not agree that doctrines that are not essential to salvation are unimportant. While I often avoid discussing them with non-believers, I do not think it is always wrong to do so. The most ardent evangelists talks about other subjects sometimes -- and I find the discussion we've been having here a good deal more edifying than the one in Dogh'd's Cosmic Bar, for instance.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar