I do think that Darwinian human evolution rules out the biblical account of the creation of man and animals. One cannot reconcile the two: the Genesis account of creation and the Darwinian accounts of human evolution cannot be simultanaously true. They are not non-overlapping magisteria (as in they do not make mutually exclusive claims). Genesis makes definite claims about the origin of the earth and it's inhabitants which contradict the claims of natural evolution. If one opts for a "creative reinterpretation of scripture" to make it fit with the scientific evidence then that opens the flood gates because if the bible is not to be read as a factual account of events then one has no grounds for dismissing most interpretations of scripture (the Manson account of Revelation is a famous one). One could interpret all the divinity out of Jesus, state that "god" was merely an anthropomorphic projection onto the laws of nature, and that prayer was really intended to lift the spirits of the supplicant and not to be actually be fulfilled. hey, if we are just making assertions now based on our ink blot of a book, why not? If none of it is fact then it all becomes an ink blot test where one is free to read into it whatever one desires. The interpretations then conform to some internal standard of the person reading and interpreting, as in it is their morality, worldview, and feelings that are being used as the standard NOT the book itself. Which leads to the final conclusion, if we are just using our own internal moral compass when reading the book why not just ditch the book and apply our moral compass directly to the world?

At least the fundamentalists have the guts to make the claims that their book actually does instead of molding it to fit their or their culture's values.

(March 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If you have to tease the text you're reading it wrong (or you have the wrong texts, maybe the qu'ran would suit you better?). They call this apologetics for a reason. Try faith, I hear it works. Amusement =/= interest. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love how you're bending the text as new knowledge becomes available, I know where this leads...lol. The words of an ignorant god aren't good enough for me either, I'd take the ole red marker to the bible myself. Keep up the good work.

So going to back to the original language in which the text was written for clarity is "bending the text???"

Do you speak, read or write any other languages? If you did you know much can be lost in a given translation. composition, context and syntax all changes when you venture from the English.

Plus one must take into account the diversity that can be found from culture to culture that speak the same language. Even if you had the same culture and took away time the meaning of words change. syntax and composition can all be greatly effected just over the course of a few hundred years, all with in the confines of the same language (The King James Bible is an example)

Now not only change the language change the core constructs of the language (One not based in the Latin) and subtract 3 or 4 thousand years. Can you see now that a simple English translation may not be sufficient to discern the whole of scripture? Sunday school is great, but it should only be view as a stepping stone to a more complete understanding. Not a pedigree or standard one would stand behind for a complete knowledge of Scripture/God. If your whole atheistic views are based on your Sunday school knowledge then may I suggest you take a more in depth look at Christianity again.

The odds that the god of Abraham is the creator of the universe are exactly the same as the odds of Prince Charles god of the cargo cult being the creator of the universe. Absofuckinglutely zero.

Quote:So going to back to the original language in which the text was written for clarity is "bending the text???"

Another one who thinks that "Hebrew" was the original language.

Wouldn't happen to have a fragment of evidence, would you? Because the earliest scraps of that piece of shit in existence are in Greek.

Hey Min, what's the name of the Upper Nile site that had its own Jewish Temple?

Elephantine Island.

That's it thanks.

Weren't most of the Elephantine papyri written in Aramaic?

ETA: Got it.


I really like this part of the Passover letter dated 419 bce.

Quote:To my brothers, Yedaniah and his colleagues of the Judahite garrison, (from) your brother Hananiah. May the gods seek the welfare of my brothers.

Source

Jews recognizing polytheistic gods centuries after Moses.

(March 21, 2012 at 8:40 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Cute. The mysterious witholding of amazing evidence.
No-ones seen that trick before. You blamed us for being unoriginal.

You make the claim, you provide what you THINK is evidence, and defend it against criticism.

If you had evidence, why be coy?

EDIT: RE the above, theres lots of ways to prove things, some things go for hundreds of years before people realise it was proof of anything (eg Gravity) why don't you give it a shot anyway Don't think I didn't notice you answered with a question again. Weasel.

Again unless you can define the parameters of your quest I can not help you with it.

If i simply state "evidence" as I understand it, it will will be lost to you. So i ask again to please define what it is you are looking for specifically and I promise to help find what you need.

Understand the conversation stops until you tell me what it is you are looking for specifically. You put the brakes on this topic because either you do not know what your looking for or you are afraid of what you might find. either way i can not proceed unless you provide simple direction.

Help yourself. You're the one who believes in fairy tales.

---

Quote:Let this be done as King Darius commanded.

An interesting thing for a Zoroastrian king like Darius to command, eh Pap?

(March 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: If you think the arguments are shared, its because you have not refuted one thing.

What is there to refute? I understand the position you all bring to the table. And appearently you all do not understand mine, Because you would also see there is nothing to refute.

Quote:Since you aren't going to defend your hypothesis, let's return to the original question since your eden posture fails to convince.

You do not understand if you think anything needs a defense. The appologetic was not created for you. I am simply looking for reasons from the atheist position as to why it would not scientifically work. To which you ALL have fail to provide any viable arguements.

Again this is not designed to replace what you believe this was created to change the way Christianity thinks. I wanted to test this theory here to see if anything could be said from your position.. Appearently you all have default to the whole Evedience arguement when you do not understand what is being discussed. Because Evidence has Absolutly Nothing to do with this conversation. The whole primise is based on one's acceptance of the Genesis account and can not reconsile the fossil record. It has nothing to do with providing "proof" because any Physical proof that supports evolution also supports this appologetic.

That is why I have been asking that you all to define what proof everyone is looking for. Because what you all would traditionally recognise as "proof" no longer supports an Anti-creation account of orgins.

That means your belief in Genesis is not required, because the new appologetic assimalates the whole threory of evolution and places the control of it squarly back in the hands of God. So now it becomes a matter of if you believe in God or not. (simply as a matter of personal prefference because You can not hide behind the idea of evolution disprooving God.) Otherwise know The burden of proof is on you to now show How the Theory of Evolution disprooves the Account of Creation in Genesis. However if you own up to you person preference in not believeing God not then the conversation is over. Again, no proof needed.

Now do you get why out of 120 posts only a hand full of you are asking for evidence? your buddies get that i have change the paradime of the traditional arguement. They know this, and they know the only way to stop me is to find some personal flaw, or even better some intelectual flaw so they can trivialize and dismiss the whole thing out right, rather than directly confront the arguement/appologetic. that is why the majority of the conversation i have been having or have been ignoring have been levied against me personally and not the message i have given.

Quote:You start from a premise that Evolution does not cancel out Creationism, and you need to realise this is not necessarily the position many of us take.

I have, and you should also realize that Most of you do. (Just read a few post that do not belong to you.)

Quote:Its fundamentalist literal christians who see it as a threat to their views, whereby you have taken a middle road. I can respect that, but I'm sure you can understand why nobody takes it very seriously. After all, we don't even take christians who call it allegory all together seriously either.

But to simply answer the original question;

Why do we think Evolution cancels out Creationism? We don't. We will defend it against absurdity, and promote education on the matter, however, the cute little mythologies of the world bear little relation to scientific fact. It wasn't proposed to disprove anything, simply explain why we have such diversity of species (in terms of natural selection).

We see a lot of silly people, with unsubstantiated ideas, but an organic cell doesn't care what you believe.. it just is.
So be it with science, and theories of evolution, whether definitely true or not, you simply look at the evidence and see where it leads you.
Absolute faith, well, it can guide and comfort many people who are lost, but like a sat nav, its probably safe to be absolutely sure that bridge actually exists before you put all your faith in it.

[/quote]
fair enough, but there are over 100 posts here that all generally speak to the contary of what you have just said.. Perhaps their was confusion in how a thread on a how message boards works. A person may post a question or a comment that may or may not have anything to do with you. He may even address the anomous Reader as you or you all. Know for certain that he does not mean you specifically. Therefore if you find what the person says is untrue about you, then know You (or whom ever) does not need to defend His personal honor. Primarily because You were not call out specifically.