Evolution

[popeyespappy]

Let this be done as King Darius commanded.

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

You got it.

[Drich]

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.

How so please explain in detail

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).

Absolutely not true. Because the understanding of the Genesis account and the written recorded of the account in Genesis, are two completely different things. If one simple adheres to what is written on the pages of Genesis then you can see there aren't any confining time lines. It is only when one adheres to traditional "religious views" rather than what is on page does the two accounts of orgins conflict.

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?

lol seriously? Do you need me to deconstruct this arguement or can you peice what i am going to say from my last paragraph?

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.

You have mislabeled my work. I have not changed one single blessed word. The bible and the genesis account still works exactly as it was written. The only thing I have changed is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of creation by taking out all of the speculation and filler material that is not written on page and inserted all of the undeniable evidence contain in the fossil record. and along the way i inadvertently answered alot of other paradoxes in the R/C understanding of Creation contains.

---

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.

show me

[The Grand Nudger]

Still writing in more fantasy? You keep railing against Catholicism like anyone gives a shit.

[mediamogul]

[quote='mediamogul' pid='259348' dateline='1332377376']
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.

How so please explain in detail

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).

Absolutely not true. Because the understanding of the Genesis account and the written recorded of the account in Genesis, are two completely different things. If one simple adheres to what is written on the pages of Genesis then you can see there aren't any confining time lines. It is only when one adheres to traditional "religious views" rather than what is on page does the two accounts of orgins conflict.

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?

lol seriously? Do you need me to deconstruct this arguement or can you peice what i am going to say from my last paragraph?

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.

You have mislabeled my work. I have not changed one single blessed word. The bible and the genesis account still works exactly as it was written. The only thing I have changed is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of creation by taking out all of the speculation and filler material that is not written on page and inserted all of the undeniable evidence contain in the fossil record. and along the way i inadvertently answered alot of other paradoxes in the R/C understanding of Creation contains.

---

My friend, not everything is about you. This is one of those instances.

[Minimalist]

show me

Child's play.

Main article: Septuagint manuscripts

The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers.

(Courtesy, Wiki)

We even have pictures of the early fragments.




What we do not have is any indication that this bullshit was written in "Hebrew" prior to the Greek version. To be sure, we have lots of claims by The Great Unwashed that there must have been such documents...but, alas, of the documents themselves we are stuck with the Greek.

[Jackalope]

Wow, see how easy it is to present evidence when asked for it.

Imagine that.

[Minimalist]

Like I said....child's play.

[NoMoreFaith]

---

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.

---

[Phil]

Jews recognizing polytheistic gods centuries after Moses.

There was a Moses?

---

You have mislabeled my work.

You are a lying moron if you continue to claim this is "your work" or "your argument." I already posted the wikipedia page on gap creationism which is exactly what you are claiming. It seems that you are living in the 19th century since you think this is a valid form of creationism. Personally, I think your a fucking retard.

[popeyespappy]

Jews recognizing polytheistic gods centuries after Moses.

There was a Moses?

---

No.