| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
02 May 2006 04:21:31 AM |
| Object: |
Which Is Right? |
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 11:37:10 AM |
|
|
Josh Miles <no@thanks.com>
Re: Which Is Right?
Inspired Author of "Learning to Read for Dummies" wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Interpreted literally, it is by no means accurate. Interpreted
symbolically, well, I think that's a matter of opinion.
I am grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 11:36:57 AM |
|
|
Josh Miles <no@thanks.com>
Re: Which Is Right?
Inspired Author of "Learning to Read for Dummies" wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Interpreted literally, it is by no means accurate. Interpreted
symbolically, well, I think that's a matter of opinion.
I am grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 12:16:13 PM |
|
|
"On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:36:57 -0400, in article
<ktp372p1nn647chfjtinndflg8v0nru0t9@4ax.com>, James stated..."
Josh Miles <no@thanks.com>
Re: Which Is Right?
Inspired Author of "Learning to Read for Dummies" wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Interpreted literally, it is by no means accurate. Interpreted
symbolically, well, I think that's a matter of opinion.
I am grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
[...snip...]
There are several problems with this attempt to reconcile
this interpretation of the Biblical account with the modern
scientific approach. A few obvious problems may give an idea of
the scope of the mistakes:
* Item #1, "a beginning", is given a probability of being first
of 10%. Obviously, the chance of a beginning being first is 100%.
This alone throws the calculation of the probability off.
* The scientific account does not have any "sea monsters", but
it does have lots of microbes (bacteria and other microscopic
life). In fact, microbes constitute the majority of life on
earth, and they aren't mentioned anywhere in the Bible, or in
your list.
* The scientific account has the first flying animals *after*
the first land animals. This does not agree with the order in
your list. Whether or not the scientific account is correct, it
disagrees with your Biblical interpretation.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mujin" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 12:30:01 PM |
|
|
In article <ktp372p1nn647chfjtinndflg8v0nru0t9@4ax.com>,
bireda@allvantage.com says...
Josh Miles <no@thanks.com>
Re: Which Is Right?
Inspired Author of "Learning to Read for Dummies" wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Interpreted literally, it is by no means accurate. Interpreted
symbolically, well, I think that's a matter of opinion.
I am grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Ignoring other problems with this common Creationist claim, the odds
of winning the full Lotto 6/49 jackpot
(http://www.wclc.com/games/lotto649_extra/game_info/rules.html) are 1
in 13,983,816 - yet not only do people think the odds are good enough
they continue to buy tickets, people actually *do* win fairly
regularly. And before you say "yeah, but they got it right the first
time" perhaps you should consider all the other creation stories among
the world's religions that don't even come close to getting the order
of things right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 06:08:21 PM |
|
|
An Mon, 22 May 2006 12:30:01 -0500, Mujin hat geschreibt:
In article <ktp372p1nn647chfjtinndflg8v0nru0t9@4ax.com>,
bireda@allvantage.com says...
Josh Miles <no@thanks.com>
Re: Which Is Right?
Inspired Author of "Learning to Read for Dummies" wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Interpreted literally, it is by no means accurate. Interpreted
symbolically, well, I think that's a matter of opinion.
I am grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Ignoring other problems with this common Creationist claim, the odds
of winning the full Lotto 6/49 jackpot
(http://www.wclc.com/games/lotto649_extra/game_info/rules.html) are 1
in 13,983,816 - yet not only do people think the odds are good enough
they continue to buy tickets, people actually *do* win fairly
regularly. And before you say "yeah, but they got it right the first
time" perhaps you should consider all the other creation stories among
the world's religions that don't even come close to getting the order
of things right.
It fits all the known facts of 1200 BC.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan LeHun" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 12:11:29 PM |
|
|
In article <ktp372p1nn647chfjtinndflg8v0nru0t9@4ax.com>,
bireda@allvantage.com says...
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Are you suggesting that there are people who might consider swapping (1)
a beginning with (8) sea monsters and flying creatures? Maybe there are
some people who would consider putting (6) land plants before (5) large
areas of dry land.
There is no need to "guess" an order. The rough order is plain for all
to see although I do think that most sane people might consider putting
(7) sun before (3) light.
--
Alan LeHun
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 06:01:53 PM |
|
|
An Mon, 22 May 2006 18:11:29 +0100, Alan LeHun hat geschreibt:
In article <ktp372p1nn647chfjtinndflg8v0nru0t9@4ax.com>,
bireda@allvantage.com says...
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Are you suggesting that there are people who might consider swapping (1)
a beginning with (8) sea monsters and flying creatures? Maybe there are
some people who would consider putting (6) land plants before (5) large
areas of dry land.
There is no need to "guess" an order. The rough order is plain for all
to see although I do think that most sane people might consider putting
(7) sun before (3) light.
Unless (3) light is really meant to be electromechanical radiation.
But then we still need (7) before (6) for photosynthesis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
22 May 2006 05:38:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:36:57 -0400, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <ktp372p1nn647chfjtinndflg8v0nru0t9@4ax.com>
Josh Miles <no@thanks.com>
Re: Which Is Right?
Inspired Author of "Learning to Read for Dummies" wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Interpreted literally, it is by no means accurate. Interpreted
symbolically, well, I think that's a matter of opinion.
I am grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
Sure, you can say it all you want; no one can stop you. But no matter
how many times you say it, you're still wrong when you say that a
literal interpretation of Genesis is accurate.
Hello,
Are you really sure? It gives the order of creation as vegetable life,
marine life, bird life, and land animals. Notice a lot more details
from this short excerpt:
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that
the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with
knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this
order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and
enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or
atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)
sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general
order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed
this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10
from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing
this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!" (Life- How did it get
here? By evolution or by creation?, 1985, p. 36)
Sincerely, James
Have you read Genesis?
There are two contradictory accounts of the order of creation of
humans and animals:
Gen 1:25-27 has humans created after animals, Gen 2:18-19 has them
created BEFORE!!!
How can any person possibly take BOTH of these literally???
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Barber" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 09:55:24 PM |
|
|
On 2006-05-02 22:17:47 +1000, "Inspired Author of \"Learning to Read
for Dummies\"" <theoriginal@dummy.net> said:
Whether or not the Creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal,
it is accurate. I am grateful to God that I live in a country that
still protects enough of my liberties to allow me to say so, for the
time being.
It's not *your* rights to freedom of (or from) religion that are endangered.
(I have made the shocking assumption that my interlocutor resides in the USA)
--
Peter Barber
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 04:29:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 May 2006 07:17:47 -0500, "Inspired Author of \"Learning to
Read for Dummies\"" <theoriginal@dummy.net> wrote:
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Handing out assignments are we? Whether or not the Creation
account in Genesis is symbolic or literal, it is accurate.
Utter nonsense.
I am
grateful to God that I live in a country that still protects enough of
my liberties to allow me to say so, for the time being.
What does liberty and the god of the Bible have to do with each other?
How much freedom did an ancient Jew have under the Mosaic law?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 07:39:18 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
And let's not have them on alt.atheism where they are 100% irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 04:29:43 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
You forgot the third choice: There is no possible reason to take
Genesis any more seriously than any other "How it all began" legend.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 06:01:48 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 02:21:31 -0700, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
A literal interpretation of the Genesis account conflicts with
observed reality. Game, set, and match.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MDS" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 05:58:59 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
I believe the account might be literal and yet not representative of an
earth that is less than 10,000 years old. Jeremiah 4: 23-26 has
Jeremiah watching the earth becoming exactly as it is described in
Genesis 1:2, which is to say a planet with life on it becoming formless
and void with darkness covering the planet. This would seemingly
eliminate the interpretation that the Genesis account implies that the
Earth is 10,000 years old or younger. It would also eliminate what has
been called the Day-Age theory in which each day is longer than 24
hours.
--
MDS (Mister Doctor Sir)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 12:38:39 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
There are two accounts, and they contradict each other. But that's par
for the course. We have scientific evidence the earth is 4.5 billion
years old, and we have observed how planets are formed in other star
systems. No need for gods there, so no need for gods here.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Member, Earthquack's 666 club
Supervisor, EAC department of little adhesive-backed shiny plastic
L-shaped doo-dads to add feet to Jesus Fish department
It is safe to say that the bible contains equal amounts of fact, history
and pizza.
-Penn Jillette
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Mirror" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 12:28:44 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Yes, the churces are divided on the translations of the stories... which
are merely stories, but facilitate the idea of something beyond us, an
all powerful being and subset of power human like beings (Angels) whom
descend onto earth to either facilitate the "creationist" ideal.
But, if we go back in time, using current scientific methods, you can
see in a way it's correct, as well the input of "Intelligent Design"
being hotly debated in the mix as well.
So we must ask ourselves... there was a void, non universe, there was a
void of space in this sector of the Galaxy, which through a combination
of heat, light, gas and gravity.. elements formed to begin the process
of Star Formation, as they predict is the case in the Astrophysical realm.
In sense that can be viewed as creation by an omnipotent being with
great understanding of the energies it created, and formed the elements
to begin the process of Star system and planetary construction.
Now, as for the literal ideal, only 6-8000 years old would be the world,
sun and planets, but we have evidence... that it's billions of years...
but that doesn't give us an exact timeline, as our reading devices may
just be estimating, and presenting false data.
This debate is hard to prove and disprove from both sides of the equation.
Peace and Love, the only truth.
http://www.rnabrand.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 01:22:02 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
The account is neither symbolic nor literal, it's proprietary. In
establishing the Hebrew religion, it was beneficial to put context to
prehistoric events in a manner that served to support related religious
reforms (a six day work week, special creation of Adam and Eve, etc.).
These served to irreversably raise human dignity to a new level,
perpetuate common literacy and organize defenses against savage warrior
nations. Until very recently in human history, it was the "winners"
that wrote the histories and obviously embellished them. Genesis is a
form of history that speaks in the voice of the ancients to perserve a
common perspective that leads directly to the world that we know.
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
JTG 5/2/06
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 06:10:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
You clearly know nothing about evolution. Why do you pretend you do?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Member, Earthquack's 666 club
Supervisor, EAC department of little adhesive-backed shiny plastic
L-shaped doo-dads to add feet to Jesus Fish department
It is safe to say that the bible contains equal amounts of fact, history
and pizza.
-Penn Jillette
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 02:02:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
The account is neither symbolic nor literal, it's proprietary. In
establishing the Hebrew religion, it was beneficial to put context to
prehistoric events in a manner that served to support related religious
reforms (a six day work week, special creation of Adam and Eve, etc.).
These served to irreversably raise human dignity to a new level,
perpetuate common literacy and organize defenses against savage warrior
nations. Until very recently in human history, it was the "winners"
that wrote the histories and obviously embellished them. Genesis is a
form of history that speaks in the voice of the ancients to perserve a
common perspective that leads directly to the world that we know.
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
This is exactly the sort of nonsense that gives postmodernism a bad
name. Only time for one little extra comment: the evidence for evolution
does not come chiefly from fossils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 04:18:14 PM |
|
|
John Harshman wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
The account is neither symbolic nor literal, it's proprietary. In
establishing the Hebrew religion, it was beneficial to put context to
prehistoric events in a manner that served to support related religious
reforms (a six day work week, special creation of Adam and Eve, etc.).
These served to irreversably raise human dignity to a new level,
perpetuate common literacy and organize defenses against savage warrior
nations. Until very recently in human history, it was the "winners"
that wrote the histories and obviously embellished them. Genesis is a
form of history that speaks in the voice of the ancients to perserve a
common perspective that leads directly to the world that we know.
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
This is exactly the sort of nonsense that gives postmodernism a bad
name. Only time for one little extra comment: the evidence for evolution
does not come chiefly from fossils.
Yes, well, I originally added the paragraph on Evolution to balance the
statement. However it grew to be much longer than the Genesis paragraph
and I was forced to edit it.
JTG 5/2/06
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 05:16:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
The account is neither symbolic nor literal, it's proprietary. In
establishing the Hebrew religion, it was beneficial to put context to
prehistoric events in a manner that served to support related religious
reforms (a six day work week, special creation of Adam and Eve, etc.).
These served to irreversably raise human dignity to a new level,
perpetuate common literacy and organize defenses against savage warrior
nations. Until very recently in human history, it was the "winners"
that wrote the histories and obviously embellished them. Genesis is a
form of history that speaks in the voice of the ancients to perserve a
common perspective that leads directly to the world that we know.
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
This is exactly the sort of nonsense that gives postmodernism a bad
name. Only time for one little extra comment: the evidence for evolution
does not come chiefly from fossils.
Yes, well, I originally added the paragraph on Evolution to balance the
statement. However it grew to be much longer than the Genesis paragraph
and I was forced to edit it.
And you contend that it was less inaccurate before you edited it? I bet
it wasn't. Your biggest problem is your main contention, that evolution
is just some kind of arbitrary belief system. What makes you think that
all statements need balancing? Perhaps reality is not symmetrical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
04 May 2006 05:43:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
The account is neither symbolic nor literal, it's proprietary. In
establishing the Hebrew religion, it was beneficial to put context to
prehistoric events in a manner that served to support related religious
reforms (a six day work week, special creation of Adam and Eve, etc.).
These served to irreversably raise human dignity to a new level,
perpetuate common literacy and organize defenses against savage warrior
nations. Until very recently in human history, it was the "winners"
that wrote the histories and obviously embellished them. Genesis is a
form of history that speaks in the voice of the ancients to perserve a
common perspective that leads directly to the world that we know.
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
JTG 5/2/06
May I ask why you raise a completely unrelated topic simply to critise
it? I was asking about the two major interpretations of the Genesis
creation account that are found within the Christian faith. And if you
are going to make such statements as you have, perhaps you can provide
citetations in support of them in future, as I requested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
04 May 2006 05:50:30 AM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
The account is neither symbolic nor literal, it's proprietary. In
establishing the Hebrew religion, it was beneficial to put context to
prehistoric events in a manner that served to support related religious
reforms (a six day work week, special creation of Adam and Eve, etc.).
These served to irreversably raise human dignity to a new level,
perpetuate common literacy and organize defenses against savage warrior
nations. Until very recently in human history, it was the "winners"
that wrote the histories and obviously embellished them. Genesis is a
form of history that speaks in the voice of the ancients to perserve a
common perspective that leads directly to the world that we know.
On the other hand, Evolution is symbolic. It is derived from fossils
and much speculation within a uniform concept of what fossils mean.
From fragments of a jaw, a leg bone and a rib, creatures are imagined.
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective. Evolution is a form of prehistory that speaks in
a modern voice of things long past and disconnected by more than just
millions of years from the world we know.
JTG 5/2/06
May I ask why you raise a completely unrelated topic simply to critise
it? I was asking about the two major interpretations of the Genesis
creation account that are found within the Christian faith. And if you
are going to make such statements as you have, perhaps you can provide
citetations in support of them in future, as I requested.
And might one ask how one can *rewrite* prehistory? It's unwritten by
definition, innit?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos,
puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 02:28:59 PM |
|
|
Considering the source, this deserves an Irony Award:
Evolutionists feel entitled to rewrite prehistory and embellish from
their new perspective.
[rest of gibberish deleted]
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "UC" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 09:39:12 AM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Why should I pay any attention to either the Bible or to the Catholic
Church? I'm busy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 06:42:06 PM |
|
|
UC wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Why should I pay any attention to either the Bible or to the Catholic
Church? I'm busy!
What the hell are you doing slumming on usenet then?
(signed) marc
...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 09:30:28 AM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Why? How can it possibly matter to anyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
03 May 2006 12:11:50 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 07:30:28 -0700, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146580228.005907.171720@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Why? How can it possibly matter to anyone?
It's quizz night in the criminally insane ward.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 12:11:27 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
The literal account collides squarely with emperically determined fact.
Therefore it is wrong. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not
6000 years.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NashtOn" |
|
| Title: Re: Which Is Right? |
02 May 2006 05:17:57 AM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
In the Book of Genesis an account is given of the creation of the
world.
The viewpoint of the Catholic Church is that this account is symbolic.
IMV, the CC is a cult.
The viewpoint of some fundamentalist Christians is that this account is
literal.
Yes.
Lets hear some responses in support of both viewpoints, and make them
constructive and supported by good reasoned arguments with links to
appropriate sources, thank you.
Why the Xposting?
--
Nicolas
"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
