ID and the bible..

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by FredM, Nov 1, 2007.

  1. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    Ok.. This is so far "off topic" that I certainly would not object if the moderators chose to remove it.. The last thing this superb site needs is to be lambasted by creationists..

    It is completely incomprehensible to me that some people believe the bible (particularly Genesis) has a true account of creation, which was (at least) inspired by the 'creator' of the universe.. I have seen many expositions and many debates / arguments, but never seen the cold, hard absurdity of the first few verses of the bible exposed.

    Genesis tells us that:

    Gen 1:1.) Earth and "the Heavens" were created FIRST - "The Heavens" is NOT the stars (these are created later) and what "the heavens" is is not defined.. but as the concepts of creation expounded in Genesis comes straight from Babylonian astronomy, t probably refers to the area outside the hard "firmament" which encloses earth.
    Gen 1:3.) Light is then created
    Gen 1:9.) Seas of earth are then formed.
    Gen 1:11.) Vegitation greated and seed bearing vegitation, plants, trees etc populate the earth.
    This brings us to the third "Day"..
    THEN: On the 3rd "day" (Gen 1:14) the SUN, MOON and STARS are created.

    We do not need to go any further.. "Days" UP to the 'creation' of the sun may be of indeterminate length (Creationists have argued that this explains some problems they have been presented with) BUT, After day 3, days are clearly defined.

    So, 1).. Earth was created before light or the sun and moon; seas formed, and life started, without earth being in orbit arround anything !
    2.) The stars were created on day 4 (physical 24 hour day 1 perhaps..) YET we can see the light from stars more than a billion light years away.. Therefore, by the bibles account, Earth (and HUMANS) MUST HAVE EXISTED FOR AT LEAST A BILLION YEARS!.... Therefore, ALL the geneology etc on which ALL the theology for ALL the major Monotheistic religeons IS WRONG, ABSURD NONSENSE.. (Judaism, Christianity and, to a lesser extent Islam all start with the Genesis story as a basis).

    There was no Garden of Eden, No ark, no "original sin" and therefore no requirement for "atonement" or "redemption" -- What was there? Well, we know for sure that there was evolution..

    Arguments over
     
  2. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    As long as the discussion stays 'on-topic' then the thread can stand.

    Dave
     
  3. m4yh3m

    Senior Member

    Apr 28, 2004
    186
    42
    Also remember that writing is still fairly young when compared to the age of the earth. It happened around 4th millennium BC. That's quite a span of time between the first man and woman on earth up to the time of the writings of Christ. It seriously questions the validity, seeings how it is more "hearsay" than actual witnessing. I don't even want to get into spoken language...that's a whole new can of worms. But Adam and Eve were NOT capable of what we would consider a natural form of verbal communication -- Unless Adam and Eve's children regressed into cavemen and then progressed into what we are today.
     
  4. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    Hi m4yh3m.. As you say, "thats a whole new can of worms".. What I am doing is using Genesis itself as proof that Genesis cannot be true. The chronology in genesis dictates that (if it was true) humans could only have been on earth for about 6000 years, and that they (Adam + Eve) were created as fully functional adult humans, with enough linguistic ability to communicate with the creator of the universe, and enough understanding to be accountable for their actions and dissobedience.

    ( I believe I have shown that, for the creation of the stars to have occurred on day 4 (the first physical day based on the suns existance and earths rotation) as specified in Genesis, this day must have occurred at least a billion years ago.. so Genesis is therebye PROVED to absolutely and unequivocally contradict itself, without any need for reference to fossil records or discoveries related to early humans.)

    Failure of any of the above renders the theological basis of Judaism and Christianity absolutely invalid. Without the dissobediance (original sin) the justification for sexual discrimination is invalidated; the 'reason' for womens pain in childbirth is not a punnishment, it is a result of the way humans evolved; The reason for all the creatures and plants which cause man a problem is not the result of gods curse on the land, it is the result of life evolving to optimise its niche.

    The whole basis of fundamental / evangelical / classical Christianity is the principle of redemption - Jesus being sacrificed to atone for sin. The core of this is complex (I studied theology when a born-again baptist) but absolutely essential to the theological basis for Christianity.. If Genesis (particularly the story of "the fall") is not literally true, then there is no need for redemption.

    For those who are not, and never have been "believers", the above seems obvious and almost juvenile - for those who believe (and I was among them 30 years ago) they are the core principles which explain everything.. Principles which seem right - "God is not to blame for suffering, we are because we sinned" until looked at closely - and then when difficulty arises, "who are we, mere humans, to question the actions of God".

    The above does nothing at all to the debate about existance / non-existance of god.. I am agnostic, and believe this question is open (although probably heavily biased to non-existance).. I do not believe it is possible to ever conclusively answer this question.
     
  5. Salgat

    Active Member

    Dec 23, 2006
    215
    1
    I wouldn't worry too much about it, this debate has been going on for, well forever. If I were you, I'd just accept that people are wrong and they will not change their ideas even if you attempt to prove them wrong.
     
  6. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    You are, of course, absolutely right..

    I get wound up when some I.D. ideas get promoted, and serious science gets banned - When, for example, research into stem cells is hampered by legislation pushed through by creationists.. And when my children are subjected at school to visits from the local vicar, who spouts creationist rubbish to the 6 year olds..

    And posting something like this helps me feel better - But I accept that, other than this, it probably serves no purpose!
     
  7. JohnBoy

    New Member

    Oct 30, 2007
    7
    0
    The first 5 chapters of Genesis give people the most trouble because they talk about about essentially 1500 yrs before the great flood. I recommend "The Genesis Record" by Henry Morris. You may find it interesting. It is not a "dry read".

    John
     
  8. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    "they talk about about essentially 1500 yrs before the great flood." -- From this, it is obviously based on belief in "the great flood"..

    Does this book answer any of the issues I raised.. Does it acknowledge the FACT that the account of creation given in Genesis is FICTION - OR - Does it explain how we see light from stars more than a billion light years away, or what the earth was revolving arround when plant life first appeared on earth?

    I have (or had - most have now been used as to start bonfires) a huge collections of books expounding creationist nonsense.. NONE of these EVER dealt with the UNDERLYING ERRORS in the FIRST PAGE of the bible.. and instead chose to deal with issues based on the belief that the first few verses of Genesis could not be proved or disproved. This assumption is WRONG - The whole farce sits firmly on a basis of complete bull - bull which (as I have shown) can be PROVED to be bull!
     
  9. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Preface: Yes, I get that this is an anti-Creationist rant. I'm going to make philosophical commentary as though it were not.

    I'm no expert on the Judeo/Christian/Muslim mythology, but didn't the old scrolls say something like "the Earth was without form?" To me, this implies that Yaweh/God/Allah did not create the world; that it already existed. The Deity simply formed things the way he wanted them.

    Certainly, failure of the above renders the metaphore nonfactual. But metaphore need not befactual to be valid.

    The creation myth told by Laplander tribes, in which Wolverine makes Muskrat puke up all the landmass of the world is also nonfactual. It is still a useful (and therefore valid) metaphore. Ditto for the NorthWest Coast tribal myths of Raven creating the universe. In both of these philosophies, the Creator is a trickster. The world is created in a clever and amusing way. The purpose of creation is to make the Trickster more comfortable, and to provide them with entertainment.

    These two tribal systems of faith have a very different outlook than does Judeism/Christianity/Islam. The creation myths are consistant with the overall outlook of the systems in each case. (As far as I can tell.)

    I find this part interesting. I had the assumption that Christians needed redemption for sins which they themselves committed. Are Christians considered guilty of sin only because Eve was guilty of sin? Are they not held accountable by their Deity for their individual actions? I would consider it a pity if they were not. What's the point in having a guilt-based system of spirituality if one cannot wallow in one's own guilt? (Not that I personally would endorse a guilt-based system of spirituality, mind you.)
     
  10. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    LOL! This, to me, is the greatest irony of Christianity.. Any yes.. this IS an anti-creationist rant! I make no appology for this.. I will appologise if anything I post turns out to be wrong / unscientific.

    First - I do not think there is anything 'wrong' with having creation fables which are regarded as such and not taken literally.. My favorite is the superb "The Music of the Ainur" in J.R.Tolkien's "the Silmarillion".. My only problem comes when these fables are taken as absolute literal truth, and when REAL science is suppressed or inhibited because its findings disagree with literal interpretation of these fables.

    I have a hereditary condition which I was not aware of until 4 years ago, when my 6 week old son became seriously sick.. It just happened that my partner was also a carrier, and the combined genes produced a life threatening result.. Subsequent tests showed that 2 of our other children also have this phenotype.. The Disease usually reduces life expectancy by 20 years, and my son, who developed it early, has a high chance of requiring liver transplant by the age of 12... I mention this because the only promising cure is based on stem cell research.. and the only reason why this form of research has been slow is that it has been hampered by religeous objectors.

    Back to Christianity.. The Christian teachings (NOT the teachings ascribed to Jesus - which are Completely different!) are clear - Due to original sin, we are born 'stained' and, regardless of what we do, or dont do, we are damned to hell as sinners - Jesus "paid the price" required by "The Father" for our "redemption" - All we need to do is accept this "ransom sacrifice" and we are "saved" for all eternity, regardless of sin we commit before, or after we accept this "sacrifice". This principle is extended in Kelvinism by the logic that, as god is all-knowing, god knew "before the foundations of the world" who was going to be saved, and who was going to be damned.. and that, with this 'foreknowlege' wrote the names of the 'saved' into the 'book of life', and the "sacrifice" was only made for those whos names were in this book..

    Going too far into this would be going "off topic" big time.. But sufice it to say that there is almost no correlation between the (alledged) words of Jesus recorded in the bible, and the teachings of (particularly) John and Paul, or the Christian religeon. I personally revere the words / person of Jesus, and feel that if He had been listened to, we would be living in a much better world.
     
  11. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    I can quote the entire 1st chapter of Genesis from memory.. sad git that I am! :cool: .. I do not know if there is a "definitive" scroll, but the King James version (the one I memorised) states (assuming my memory serves me well - and I am not sure my punctuation is correct): In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void. And darkness was uppon the face of the deep. And God said "let there be light" and there was light, and God seperated the light from the darkness, and the light he called day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Then god does some engineering work, mostly to do with the "firmament" and the "waters"..

    But none of this matters in relation to the issues I raised.. These start with the creation of plant life on earth prior to the creation of the sun,moon and stars.. My assertion that this sequence is absurd, and my follow-up thought that, as the creation of the sun and moon defined the first undesputable 'real' day, and the fact that we can see light from stars more than a billion light years away, means that IF LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS IS APPLIED, GENESIS STATES THAT THE FIRST 'REAL' DAY MUST HAVE BEEN AT LEAST A BILLION YEARS AGO! :eek:
     
  12. Salgat

    Active Member

    Dec 23, 2006
    215
    1
    Remember that plants can exist with the absence of the sun, normally referred to as nighttime. Also remember that God has the ability to create photons, and that the 7 days represent time, regardless of whether or not a sun existed. I'm not trying to prove whether or not it's literal, since I don't even know if it's true, but I'm still up for responding to your concerns if I can answer them.
     
  13. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    A lot of the stuff in the bible is symbolic. Wasn't meant to be taken literally. Some stuff was written as an example, not necessarily fact or truth. A good portion of the bible has been used out of context, to persuade the masses. It's an endless arguement, and has been the start of many wars, considerable death and destruction. Seems really odd, because the various bibles of different cultures, tend to agree that violence is a bad thing.

    Debating Genesis is kind of futile, since the creation was before man, language, written history... The best we could be expect is an uneducated interpretation of the events, neither accurate or correct.

    Personally, I tend to believe in evolution to some extent. But find it odd we don't find totally new critters wandering about occasionally, not just variations of what's been around for a while.
     
  14. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    As someone educated in a Catholic school, this was often the slant on the teachings of Religious Education. The whole basis of studying Mark's Gospel was that it was a 'first-hand' (although I now believe that the interpretation of 'first-hand' is not what I would call it, i.e. there at the time), and that the stories of Jesus' life were to taken as parables of Christian teachings. Whether this was the slant taken on other areas of the bible, I am not sure, in fact I can't fully remember. Given this, that is why I am surprised that some people preach the idea of Genesis being 'actual-fact' - its not for me to question otherwise, believe what you want to do as long as you don't harm anyone else (I actually don't like people preaching at me either, but that is personal preference).

    Dave
     
  15. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    I am fine about people having belief.. In some ways, I wish I could be one of them - It is FAR harder to live without any "certainties" and face the overwhelming likelyhood that "All is vanity and vexation of spirit" (Everything is ultimately pointless)..

    It is NOT personal belief which causes me a problem - it is collective dogmatic belief, translated into POWER which is used to (at least) slow down human progress, and (at worst) cause death and destruction, and impose ideology on those who do not accept the dogma.
     
  16. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    that matches word to word what i have to say on this topic.

    someone said "the idea of God is too good to be true."
    yet life is a little too boring without the idea.
     
  17. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    6,960
    144
    Indeed so. Can I ask, do you feel that this is a problem internal to the UK (ignoring external influences of religion)? i.e. Do you feel religion has made the translation into a powerful and controlling influence in society?

    Dave
     
  18. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    I think it is quite subtle in the U.K... Not the same kind of power as in the U.S.A.. but present none the less. I think that Tony Bliar pushed it closer to being a big 'power' issue here than it has been for a long time.

    However, I think it is the international aspect of this 'power' which is more significant - R+D (for example, stem cell research) being hampered in the USA has a MAJOR knock-on effect for R+D in other countries.. it is all about money really - for example, development of equipment to facilitate specialist lab activities related to a specifc niche can be astronomically expensive - and often not economically justified.. If one has a market in the USA, the economics of scale can make development justifiable, remove this market, and it is not economically viable.

    We have seen this with genetic research - When the human genome project started, methods for gene sequencing were laborious and expensive - The size of the project made development of faster + cheaper sequencing methods financially attractive, and made R+D into this justifiable - which resulted in sequencing equipment being developed which is orders of magnitude better than before.

    But - back to the question.. I do think there has been a global shift towards fundamentalist religeous belief, and more arrogance and willingness by these believers in enforcing their dogma .. I think a polarization is occurring (I think Bush + team, + Bliar may be the major cause of this) and all 3 monothiestic religeons have more power and arrogance and willingness to impose their ideology now.
     
  19. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    I assure you Dave, the problem is not limited to the UK. Monotheist extremists have influence in US politics as well. I don't want to go off-topic with examples, but laws and regulations backed by these folk do impact many lives over on this side of the pond. This does indeed include restrictions on stem-cell research.

    Fred: Since monotheist extremists are unlikely to acquiesce to logic, are there any viable political or legal avenues to ease restrictions on stem-cell research in the UK?
     
  20. FredM

    Thread Starter Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2005
    124
    1
    Stem cell research in the U.K. is not limited in the way it is in the U.S.A. - It is probably as 'free' here as it ever will be - Permission was granted for transgenic experiments recently, which was a big surprise..

    I do believe there needs to be control over what scientists are allowed to do - And I do believe that ethical issues need to be (a major) part of this process..

    What I do not believe is that 'ethics' should be guided or influenced by words on dead pages from dead scrolls of dead "holy" books inspired by DEAD "GODS".. Which is why I focus on attacking literal interpretation of these "holy" books, and PROVING that they CANNOT be used as LITERAL "instructions" from any"God"... Because, if they were truly "inspired" (and protected by god from unauthorised human manipulation, as it is claimed) by a creator of this incredible universe, they would not be so DAMN STUPID and would not contain so many MORONIC ERRORS!
     
Loading...