Adam and eve or evolution

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.

Admiral Akbar
"evolution" is a fact, anyone that argues differently is an idiot.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve. If that story were true how do you explain where Asian people came from.

AngryManatee
The theory of evolution vs creation is really just a big pong-debate. Uber christians will not be swayed, and those of the scientific mind will not be swayed. It's a matter of faith vs facts. Evolution is science. Creation is a fairy tale, along with ID.

Begin debate of the infinite.

Admiral Akbar
Agreed, I suppose the best way to resolve it is to ask the question: whether fact is > faith

Shakyamunison
Is this in the wrong forum?

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Agreed, I suppose the best way to resolve it is to ask the question: whether fact is > faith And which is fact and which is faith. And if those are mutually exclusive.

Admiral Akbar
Wha...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
"evolution" is a fact, anyone that argues differently is an idiot.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve. If that story were true how do you explain where Asian people came from. Or...if Adam and Ever were Asian, where do `Caucasian people come from?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Wha...

Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Often fundamentalist Christians try to confuse the issue by claiming that science is based on faith just like religion is. This is based on the idea that all reality is relative and we only know something because of a set of assumptions. They do this while at the same time claiming that their beliefs are absolute. roll eyes (sarcastic) And Darwinian Fundamentalists claim that science contains no elements of faith, despite the fact that observational science cannot prove how the universe came about.

There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Acrosurge
And Darwinian Fundamentalists claim that science contains no elements of faith, despite the fact that observational science cannot prove how the universe came about.

There is a fundamental difference in ideology, hence the endless debates.

I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.

You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith.

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what a Darwinian Fundamentalists is.

You are making an assumption: you are assuming that the universe had a beginning. The big band theory only says that at some point in the past the universe was very small. Science is based on observations of nature. Observations of nature are not based on faith. One must also make an assumption to say that the universe did not have a beginning.

One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Acrosurge
One must also make an assumption to say that the universe did not have a beginning.

One cannot observe how the universe came into being, therefore it is not strictly scientific to say, "It was created by an eternal series of contractions and expansions," or "It was created by a god," or, "It was created by cows." These are all faith statements that cannot be observed nor proven. Hence, the irreconcilably of ideologies.

If you read what I posted, you will see that I was not making an assumption about the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out your assumption.

How is observations of nature equal to faith?

inimalist
Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally.

all life on this planet (so far documented) is the offspring of ONE single cell

Originally posted by reece123collins
This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family.

at one point, the population of reproducing human females was reduced to a handful, meaning this is probably true anyways, if the fact that we all come from the same single cellular organism does not mean we are all from the same family.

Originally posted by reece123collins
So where did race,

geographically and family isolated groups of pre-humans

Originally posted by reece123collins
langue,

pre linguistic pointing and gesturing combined with the advantage of more complex grunts as communication devices

Originally posted by reece123collins
traditions,

memes passed to offspring and through transaction, geographically or culturally isolated

Originally posted by reece123collins
origins all come from.

origins of which?

Originally posted by reece123collins
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates

evolution isn't an ability, it is a process. We hypothetically have the ability to evolve into anything that genetic variation allows for in our environment, with the long-term changes being based on which of those varieties were best suited for the environment.

Originally posted by reece123collins
but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something

yes, all lifeforms on the planet share some portion of their DNA, Depending on how closely related the species are. You and I likely have almost identical genes, whereas a chimp would have 90%+ of the same dna. A dog some smaller percentage, followed by bananas and bacteria.

Originally posted by reece123collins
which they have proven through carbon dating or something.

probably more through genetic sequencing, though I'll admit I don't know for sure

Originally posted by reece123collins
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent

human imagination is not subject to limits, however, reality is. There are many things which are impossible.

Originally posted by reece123collins
so really both answers are up for argument.

absolutly not. Creationism or intelligent design are unsubstantiable and errorous. They do not conform to anything approaching science. Rationally, only evolution is "up for argument"

Originally posted by reece123collins
but my personal view is ecolution.

lol, nice smile

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you read what I posted, you will see that I was not making an assumption about the beginning of the universe. I was pointing out your assumption.

How is observations of nature equal to faith? And if you read my post, you will note that I said nothing about observation of nature being the equivalent of faith. Only that the method of the origin of the universe cannot be proven by observational science. Therefore, the Fundamentalist makes a leap of faith when they say, "It existed eternally."

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

inimalist
Originally posted by Acrosurge

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.



actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...

"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.

It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Acrosurge
And if you read my post, you will note that I said nothing about observation of nature being the equivalent of faith. Only that the method of the origin of the universe cannot be proven by observational science. Therefore, the Fundamentalist makes a leap of faith when they say, "It existed eternally."

When it comes to origins, one must make an assumption one way or the other.

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

Science does not say that the universe is eternal or not.

Do you not see that by asking the question "how did the universe begin?" you are inserting an assumption that the universe has a beginning?

I have not read that book, but I have heard fundamentalist Christians call evolution Darwinism as if Darwin invented evolution.

Acrosurge
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, science doesn't have to explain things it can't possibly...

"I don't know, lets keep looking" is an acceptable answer, thus, science makes no assumptions about anything. It either has the data or does not.

It would however be valid to say "any belief one has about the absolute nature of the origins of the universe is a belief based on faith" then yes. However, all scientific facts could have that said about them, as one of the most important parts to science is the knowledge that its answers are always incomplete. Thus, there are no absolutes in science. You have stated better than I.

I agree completely.

inimalist
Originally posted by Acrosurge

Also, you will find the best definition of Darwinian Fundamentalism in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

as a further note:

in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who use vehicular interstellar transport as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.

so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.

For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested.

inimalist
Originally posted by Acrosurge
You have stated better than I.

I agree completely.

i must have misinterpreted, appologies

Acrosurge
Originally posted by inimalist
as a further note:

in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who use vehicular interstellar transport as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.

so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.

For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested. Again, I agree absolutely. And it should be noted that Richard Dawkins's credibility has not been injured by his suggestion that aliens created life on Earth.

The term "supernatural" is a strange one. How should one define it?

Originally posted by inimalist
i must have misinterpreted, appologies No apologies necessary. From the beginning, my point has only been that one must make assumptions when it comes to the origin (or alternatively, the eternal nature) of the universe.

BetrayedUnicorn
well if you wanted a biblical reason for diffrent language,color of skin,traditions etc. you could read in the old testement where it talks about how the people were all the same in those aspects, physical aspects that is. and then they decided they were going to try and build a tower to heaven. when they did this god didnt like it so he spread them through around the world, confusing their tongues and them being put in places like asia, North America, and russia made them have to adapt. this is the incident of the tower of babel.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
well if you wanted a biblical reason for diffrent language,color of skin,traditions etc. you could read in the old testement where it talks about how the people were all the same in those aspects, physical aspects that is. and then they decided they were going to try and build a tower to heaven. when they did this god didnt like it so he spread them through around the world, confusing their tongues and them being put in places like asia, North America, and russia made them have to adapt. this is the incident of the tower of babel.

And before this happened, what color was the people?

BetrayedUnicorn
I dont know. I will assume that since this is a middle eastern/jerusalem setting they would have the distinct look of the area.

Acrosurge
Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
well if you wanted a biblical reason for diffrent language,color of skin,traditions etc. you could read in the old testement where it talks about how the people were all the same in those aspects, physical aspects that is. and then they decided they were going to try and build a tower to heaven. when they did this god didnt like it so he spread them through around the world, confusing their tongues and them being put in places like asia, North America, and russia made them have to adapt. this is the incident of the tower of babel. I don't think this would have much to do with skin color, but it might be applied to the radical differences in linguistic construction between more exotic languages.

BetrayedUnicorn
Im saying skin color variations because of things like the south americans are closer to the equator...wait;never mind that part really does make no sense to me either haha but I still stand on the other things.starwars

inimalist
Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
Im saying skin color variations because of things like the south americans are closer to the equator...wait;never mind that part really does make no sense to me either haha but I still stand on the other things.starwars

lol

ya, god did it is a pretty complete and nice package to wrap all those difficult questions up in

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
Im saying skin color variations because of things like the south americans are closer to the equator...wait;never mind that part really does make no sense to me either haha but I still stand on the other things.starwars

So, languages did not evolve, but came into existence at one place and time?

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, languages did not evolve, but came into existence at one place and time?

god took painstaking care to make them look as if they did when he created them all at once.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
god took painstaking care to make them look as if they did when he created them all at once.

Which leads to the question of why? But you already knew that.


BTW I know the answer...

BetrayedUnicorn
yeah....good times good times.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
yeah....good times good times.

What?

Acrosurge
Originally posted by inimalist
god took painstaking care to make them look as if they did when he created them all at once. Languages do evolve. Germanic languages are a perfect example. On the other hand, there are languages that have little linguistic or syntax denominators. Several African languages require additional study, as they should be quite similar to surrounding natives (having descended from common ancestors in the recent past with common communication), but they are not. Several South American native languages are also disimilar from their North American neighbors (also sharing common descent).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Acrosurge
Languages do evolve. Germanic languages are a perfect example. On the other hand, there are languages that have little linguistic or syntax denominators. Several African languages require additional study, as they should be quite similar to surrounding natives (having descended from common ancestors in the recent past with common communication), but they are not. Several South American native languages are also disimilar from their North American neighbors (also sharing common descent).

Anomalies only mean we don't understand the complexity of the evolution... but I digress.

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Anomalies only mean we don't understand the complexity of the evolution... but I digress. Of course. In this thread, I believe we have already established the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Therefore, more examination is necessary, possibly to account for factors and data previously unknown or unobserved.

Side note: It is fascinating to me that there is so much discussion of science going on in what is essentially a philosophy thread. I suppose none of us have yet realized that in such an arena, philosophy will trump science every time. smile

lord xyz
adam and eve, obviously.

BetrayedUnicorn
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?

I do not know...

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Acrosurge
Of course. In this thread, I believe we have already established the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. Therefore, more examination is necessary, possibly to account for factors and data previously unknown or unobserved.

Side note: It is fascinating to me that there is so much discussion of science going on in what is essentially a philosophy thread. I suppose none of us have yet realized that in such an arena, philosophy will trump science every time. smile

Are we considering etymology and linguistics sciences? I have no problem seeing them as sciences, but I think you mistook shakya's use of evolution in his comment.

Kelly_Bean
Both.
Apes were first, Adam and Eve were the first humans to have walked the earth after evolving from apes. stick out tongue

Bardock42
So, what about Adam and Eveolution?


Hahahaha, oh yeah, I went there, high five, **** yeah. STEVE HOLT!

Admiral Akbar
So only Eve evolved?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.

Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.

P23
theres alot of possibilities on how life was formed. for all we know we may be a part of the big bang theory. do i believe adam and eve is responsible? maybe. the way i look at life is its a journey. i believe mankind (us) is open to accepting on who created us. im a christian and do i believe god is real? yes because god is faith and everyone has faith even if they dont show it. now what is the main project for mankind? repopulation.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by P23
theres alot of possibilities on how life was formed. for all we know we may be a part of the big bang theory. do i believe adam and eve is responsible? maybe. the way i look at life is its a journey. i believe mankind (us) is open to accepting on who created us. im a christian and do i believe god is real? yes because god is faith and everyone has faith even if they dont show it. now what is the main project for mankind? repopulation.

Yes, but there is a big difference between one and the other. One side of the argument strives for scientific proof. The other doesn't think it needs to because it has something called "faith." I agree that we are open to fact and truth. Well, most people; if people find overwhelming evidence of God then I would believe in it.
Not everybody relies on faith, especially if it's faith in God.

P23
Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Yes, but there is a big difference between one and the other. One side of the argument strives for scientific proof. The other doesn't think it needs to because it has something called "faith." I agree that we are open to fact and truth. Well, most people; if people find overwhelming evidence of God then I would believe in it.
Not everybody relies on faith, especially if it's faith in God.



like i stated the world is capabile of anything. hell when the bible says the end of days i bet we destroy ourselves do to the shit in the mid east. im not saying one thought is right im saying everything is possible.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by P23
like i stated the world is capabile of anything. hell when the bible says the end of days i bet we destroy ourselves do to the shit in the mid east. im not saying one thought is right im saying everything is possible.

Considering how well the world has bounced back from "shit in the mid east" through out history I can't see the slightest reason for concern.

Acrosurge
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering how well the world has bounced back from "shit in the mid east" through out history I can't see the slightest reason for concern. Hmmm. Allow petty, middle east dictators to build functioning, nuclear weapons and watch the fur fry... er, fly.

Symmetric Chaos
I meant about causing Armageddon.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.

big grin thumb up

Evil Dead
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Adam and Eve is about duality, its not literal.

quite possibly but the only place I have ever seen the story of Adam and Eve was in the old Testament and it was offered up as the literal origins of human beings along with the creation of the rest of the universe as told in Genesis.

In this story Eve is created by a magical/invisible diety from Adam's rib. A rib who's cells contain the exact same DNA sequence as every other cell in Adam's body. Ofcourse, today we know that this could only result in a clone, a genetic duplicate of the source (Adam). The story is as such because the primitive man who concocted it had no idea what DNA was or that it existed. He just looked at the world around him wondering how things work and why things are the way they are. The only answer his knowledge deprived brain could arrive at was " a magical, invisible man is responsible for it all so this is how he did it".

If there is an older version, please inform me.....no sarcasm intended.

Deja~vu
Well there are Gnostic versions. One may be The Book of Adam, I believe.
Some Gnostics adopted a pattern of interpretation similar to Philo's but changed the content. Instead of characterizing human psychodynamics, as Philo had, in terms of an interaction between mind and sensation, Gnostics pictured it in terms of the interaction of soul and spirit, that is, between the psyche (ordinary consciousness, understood to include both mind and sensation) and the spirit, the potential for a higher, spiritual consciousness. Many Gnostics read the story of Adam and Eve, consequently, as an account of what takes place within a person who is engaged in the process of spiritual self-discovery.

Good point also. If the DNA was identical, then Eve was a man or am I wrong.

Evil Dead
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Well there are Gnostic versions. One may be The Book of Adam, I believe.
Some Gnostics adopted a pattern of interpretation similar to Philo's but changed the content. Instead of characterizing human psychodynamics, as Philo had, in terms of an interaction between mind and sensation, Gnostics pictured it in terms of the interaction of soul and spirit, that is, between the psyche (ordinary consciousness, understood to include both mind and sensation) and the spirit, the potential for a higher, spiritual consciousness. Many Gnostics read the story of Adam and Eve, consequently, as an account of what takes place within a person who is engaged in the process of spiritual self-discovery.

Good point also. If the DNA was identical, then Eve was a man or am I wrong.

I understand completely about interpretation. Many Christians today even choose to interpret most of the bible as metaphors instead of casting aside thier belief structure that is based on a book they know to be completely wrong. Anybody can interpret any piece of written material in ways never intended.

that was really my point. The story, as written was not done so to be interpretated. It was the 100% literal account of the origins of man and our universe. Any interpretations of it are done only after it was all debunked. Is it really fair to go back to a primitive story known to be wrong and ouright silly, after the fact, and try to impose other meanings onto it grasping at some hope of validity? I mean....if someone writes down an account of how things happened, only to be proven false.........why go back and try to interpretate the false information in such a way as to try to lend it creedence and/or merit? what does that accomplish? Surely any ideology that could arise from it could be easily duplicated with that person writing their own story, one that it actually meant to be interpretated on different levels.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Evil Dead
quite possibly but the only place I have ever seen the story of Adam and Eve was in the old Testament and it was offered up as the literal origins of human beings along with the creation of the rest of the universe as told in Genesis.

In this story Eve is created by a magical/invisible diety from Adam's rib. A rib who's cells contain the exact same DNA sequence as every other cell in Adam's body. Ofcourse, today we know that this could only result in a clone, a genetic duplicate of the source (Adam). The story is as such because the primitive man who concocted it had no idea what DNA was or that it existed. He just looked at the world around him wondering how things work and why things are the way they are. The only answer his knowledge deprived brain could arrive at was " a magical, invisible man is responsible for it all so this is how he did it".

If there is an older version, please inform me.....no sarcasm intended.

I don't understand why the whole rib thing is in there. If God really exists and that is really what happened, then it is utterly absurd to think it is beyond God's ability to alter the DNA of the incoming tissues to form a female.

Evil Dead
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand why the whole rib thing is in there. If God really exists and that is really what happened, then it is utterly absurd to think it is beyond God's ability to alter the DNA of the incoming tissues to form a female.

then it would also be absurd to think he would need to use a rib in the first place, or dirt for Adam. Why not just a blink of the eyes and nod of the head, I Dream of Jeanie style?

because that's not how it was written. Once the author decided to include the rib in his story, presenting it as factual and not fantasy, he was then bound by the laws of physics also created by his god. He didn't say god took adam's rib and manipulated it into something else, then made Eve. He strictly said Adam's rib. We know what a rib is. Unfortunately for the author, we know more what a rib is then he did. We know what comprises a rib where he did not. If his god didn't want the physical laws pertaining to the rib and the DNA included therein to exist, he wouldn't have made them.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Evil Dead
then it would also be absurd to think he would need to use a rib in the first place, or dirt for Adam. Why not just a blink of the eyes and nod of the head, I Dream of Jeanie style?

because that's not how it was written. Once the author decided to include the rib in his story, presenting it as factual and not fantasy, he was then bound by the laws of physics also created by his god. He didn't say god took adam's rib and manipulated it into something else, then made Eve. He strictly said Adam's rib. We know what a rib is. Unfortunately for the author, we know more what a rib is then he did. We know what comprises a rib where he did not. If his god didn't want the physical laws pertaining to the rib and the DNA included therein to exist, he wouldn't have made them.

I agree with you much more than you think. That's why I said I don't get the need for the rib portion of the story. Also, you bring up an even better point about the "poof" thing. (making Eve out of nothing with a "poof".)

God subjected himself to the Laws of the Universe when he created it. I don't believe that God does "poof" with anything...and if he does, it is less "poof" and more "science" than we know.

I think that evolution fits much better into the type of uber intelligent God that people believe in. Having a "poof" God makes him immature, restricted, and less intelligent.

Evil Dead
I see no need for a god at all anymore. Sure, it served a purpose at one time. There were so many questions, no answers.....god filled the need. Necissity is the mother of invention. They needed answers, they invented one.

Thousands of years later, not only have we provided answers for most questions they had at the time......eliminating the need they had created a god to fill, we have answered so many more questions then they could have ever imagined asking.

It now seems as though people forget why a god was concieved of in the first place. A god isn't about going to a building every sunday for 2 hours or donating 10% of your income to an organization. It never was. It wasn't 3,000 years ago.....even 2,000 years ago. It seems as though that's the only purpose a god fills these days, filling pockets and strength in numbers for a ruling corporation.

I'm sorry about this post diverting off-topic. I thought it relevant to dadudemon's last post but realize it is indeed off-topic. However, I'll be damned if I'm not going to go ahead and post it after typing it out so accept my apologies.

darkxbox
Originally posted by reece123collins
I think evolution simply because how could everyone in the world come from only two people originally. This would mean that to an extent we are all related and the same family. So where did race, langue, traditions, origins all come from.
I also think evolution because even though scientists have proven to some extent we have the capability to evolve from primates but there is some evidence that we all have the same dna or something which they have proven through carbon dating or something.
But honestly i know that nothing is impossible to some extent so really both answers are up for argument. but my personal view is ecolution.

i will only say this once. the bible is actually a misinterpretation of the actual story of the creeation and evolution of mankind. the different languages and cultures, as stated in the bible, happened when "god" made everyone on earth speak a different language when they were attempting to build a "tower" to the heavens so that they would not bbe able to work together.

(all words in quotations are misinterpretations.)

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Evil Dead

because that's not how it was written. Once the author decided to include the rib in his story, presenting it as factual and not fantasy

Originally posted by Evil Dead
The story, as written was not done so to be interpretated. It was the 100% literal account of the origins of man and our universe.

But how do you know that? Were you there looking over the guy's shoulder as it was being transcribed? No, so you don't know how it was meant to be taken.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Any interpretations of it are done only after it was all debunked. Is it really fair to go back to a primitive story known to be wrong and ouright silly, after the fact, and try to impose other meanings onto it grasping at some hope of validity?

Yes. And its not only "fair", but its the correct thing to do. When some one tells you that its raining cats and dogs, do you really think that a dalmatian might fall on the hood of your car? Of course not. There's no "debunking" necessary, you know its scientifically unsound and therefore a metaphor when you hear it. "When pigs fly"; same thing, now just apply that to Biblical teachings.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Evil Dead
I see no need for a god at all anymore. Sure, it served a purpose at one time. There were so many questions, no answers.....god filled the need. Necissity is the mother of invention. They needed answers, they invented one.

Thousands of years later, not only have we provided answers for most questions they had at the time......eliminating the need they had created a god to fill, we have answered so many more questions then they could have ever imagined asking.

It now seems as though people forget why a god was concieved of in the first place. A god isn't about going to a building every sunday for 2 hours or donating 10% of your income to an organization. It never was. It wasn't 3,000 years ago.....even 2,000 years ago. It seems as though that's the only purpose a god fills these days, filling pockets and strength in numbers for a ruling corporation.

I'm sorry about this post diverting off-topic. I thought it relevant to dadudemon's last post but realize it is indeed off-topic. However, I'll be damned if I'm not going to go ahead and post it after typing it out so accept my apologies.

I agree with you post, for the most part. However, it is arrogant to think that we have eliminated questions by answering other ones. We have actually created more questions by answering old ones. It is almost like a Geometric function: the more we discover, the more unknowns we can explore from the new knowledge. This does not apply to ever little piece of information as some new information is absolute and all encompassing for its application or use but even then, some of that very same information can be used to answer other questions that lead to more questions. (Here's an example: the freezing point of water at STP is discovered through measurement and quantification...that leads to many many many new questions such as properties of polar molecules, why electrons have affinities for specific electron orbitals in a stable and bonded yet polar molecule,volumetric properties of polar molecules in their different states, etc. Do you see how that works? One can understand most of the available information on current information on quantum physics, but that doesn't mean he or she knows the precise moment and location a microscopic singularity will appear and then disappear.

Evil Dead
nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the bible is it stated that anything contained within the pages of both testaments are less than 100% literal. If you are saying that these people knew these things were absurd when they were written and were meant to not be taken seriously as the author was just pulling their legs, you open up another can of worms. Invisible/magical dieties wouldn't exist so there goes the Old Testament. We know it doesn't rain cats (not really know, but know it's not plausible) because it has never been proven to do so. People do not resurrect from the dead so there goes the New Testament. If your implication is that the authors of the Holy Bible intended to take all of the outlandish stories as nothing more than metaphors because the audience should have automatically known these things don't happen because it is scientificly unsound.....there is no bible. No god makes for a boring first chapter and no Jesus makes for a less than spectacular sequel. So what was the point, a very very long winded bedtime story?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Evil Dead
nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the bible is it stated that anything contained within the pages of both testaments are less than 100% literal. If you are saying that these people knew these things were absurd when they were written and were meant to not be taken seriously as the author was just pulling their legs, you open up another can of worms. Invisible/magical dieties wouldn't exist so there goes the Old Testament. We know it doesn't rain cats (not really know, but know it's not plausible) because it has never been proven to do so. People do not resurrect from the dead so there goes the New Testament. If your implication is that the authors of the Holy Bible intended to take all of the outlandish stories as nothing more than metaphors because the audience should have automatically known these things don't happen because it is scientificly unsound.....there is no bible. No god makes for a boring first chapter and no Jesus makes for a less than spectacular sequel. So what was the point, a very very long winded bedtime story?

But on the same token, nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does it assert it is to be taken 100% literally. So, using deductive reasoing we can assume that the stories of Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark are metaphorical moral tales.

Unlike the Koran, which repeatadly and in no uncertain terms asserts that it isn't up to interpretation, no such thing is said within the Bible.

Evil Dead
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But on the same token, nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does it assert it is to be taken 100% literally. So, using deductive reasoing we can assume that the stories of Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark are metaphorical moral tales.

Unlike the Koran, which repeatadly and in no uncertain terms asserts that it isn't up to interpretation, no such thing is said within the Bible.

but we can't pick and choose. there is no distincition made in the book between outlandish shit like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark. etc. and Jesus virgin birth, miracles, son of god, resurrection. It's more outlandish. Adam and Eve are no more absurd than the rest of Genesis, so that's out the window too.

it's all absurd. Either the book as a whole is to be presented as factual by the author or the book as a whole is to be presented as a wild flight of fiction by the author as a morality tale, no different than Little Red Riding Hood.

FoxMeister
I see too much evidence towards evolution to think that it all started with 2 naked people.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Evil Dead
but we can't pick and choose. there is no distincition made in the book between outlandish shit like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark. etc. and Jesus virgin birth, miracles, son of god, resurrection. It's more outlandish. Adam and Eve are no more absurd than the rest of Genesis, so that's out the window too.

it's all absurd. Either the book as a whole is to be presented as factual by the author or the book as a whole is to be presented as a wild flight of fiction by the author as a morality tale, no different than Little Red Riding Hood.

It's not arbitrary "picking and choosing" which you seem to be implying. It's deciphering. If a story is scientifically unsound, then you can safely assume it is a metaphor. And that's exactly what Biblical scholars do: decipher.

"Either the whole book"? Who are you to decide that? Are you a Biblical scholar?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's not arbitrary "picking and choosing" which you seem to be implying. It's deciphering. If a story is scientifically unsound, then you can safely assume it is a metaphor. And that's exactly what Biblical scholars do: decipher.

"Either the whole book"? Who are you to decide that? Are you a Biblical scholar?

Ha. Deciphering IS picking and choosing, it's just done under the facade of "scholarship." Hundreds of years ago, plenty more people believed the Bible as literal fact. Fast forward past numerous scientific advancements, and the same beliefs would seem rather silly. It's a retreat to a more intellectually defensible position.

Pretty much all of it that deals with the divine is scientifically unsound, so why is it so abhorrent to most Christians to see Jesus as the same metaphor that you can clearly see the others as?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ha. Deciphering IS picking and choosing, it's just done under the facade of "scholarship." Hundreds of years ago, plenty more people believed the Bible as literal fact. Fast forward past numerous scientific advancements, and the same beliefs would seem rather silly. It's a retreat to a more intellectually defensible position.

No, it's called placing the text in proper context and analyzing what may be meant by sections that are obvious metaphors. Science is allowed to reevaluate its position as times change and people look at things from new perspective. Religion cannot be attacked for the exact same process simply because you dislike it.

Evil Dead
are you now implying that virgin births, miracles and resurrection are scientificly sound? No diety is scientificly sound...just as the Adam and Eve story isn't scientificly sound. Your words Mota, not mine.

if god himself and Jesus Christ are both merely "obvious metaphors" as they are neither scientificly sound, again, then isn't the whole book a metaphor? Correct me if I'm wrong but the old testament is 100% about god and his doings...while the new testament is about Jesus Christ and his doings.

what are the qualifications of being a "bible scholor"? I've read the book a couple times. What credentials do I need to read the book again and all of a sudden see new words and verses contained therein?

If knowing the old testament is dedicated to god and the new testament is dedicated to J.C. makes one a scholar, I believe there are probably a billion or so bible scholars floating around.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Evil Dead
are you now implying that virgin births, miracles and resurrection are scientificly sound? No diety is scientificly sound...just as the Adam and Eve story isn't scientificly sound. Your words Mota, not mine.

if god himself and Jesus Christ are both merely "obvious metaphors" as they are neither scientificly sound, again, then isn't the whole book a metaphor? Correct me if I'm wrong but the old testament is 100% about god and his doings...while the new testament is about Jesus Christ and his doings.

Technically strawman.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
what are the qualifications of being a "bible scholor"? I've read the book a couple times. What credentials do I need to read the book again and all of a sudden see new words and verses contained therein?

None. You simply have to be able to express and defend those interpretations to others.

achangel death
if evolution is true then to an extent adam and eve can be true. if we evolved from monkeys then there had to be a male and a female around the same time period, so one could argue that they would be adam and eve.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by achangel death
if evolution is true then to an extent adam and eve can be true. if we evolved from monkeys then there had to be a male and a female around the same time period, so one could argue that they would be adam and eve.

Problem 1: We did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor that does not exist on the Earth today. Monkeys diverged from apes, including humans, from an even older ancestor. To put is simply, everything on the Earth today evolved from earlier animals that do not exist today.

Problem 2: The human race could not have come from one mating pair. The interbreeding would have lead to the extinction of the human race long ago.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Problem 1: We did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor that does not exist on the Earth today. Monkeys diverged from apes, including humans, from an even older ancestor. To put is simply, everything on the Earth today evolved from earlier animals that do not exist today.

Problem 2: The human race could not have come from one mating pair. The interbreeding would have lead to the extinction of the human race long ago.

thumb up

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ha. Deciphering IS picking and choosing, it's just done under the facade of "scholarship." Hundreds of years ago, plenty more people believed the Bible as literal fact. Fast forward past numerous scientific advancements, and the same beliefs would seem rather silly. It's a retreat to a more intellectually defensible position.


Deciphering is not picking and choosing. When Egyptologists decipher hieroglyphics, does that mean they arbitrarily attach meanings that they came up with? "The falcon means this because I want it to"? No, absolutely not. They learn exactly what it means, and how it was meant to be. Same with Biblical scholars. And if you think scholarship is a facade then you don't have much respect for people who bust their ass to get a PhD.

Originally posted by Evil Dead

what are the qualifications of being a "bible scholor"? I've read the book a couple times. What credentials do I need to read the book again and all of a sudden see new words and verses contained therein?

If knowing the old testament is dedicated to god and the new testament is dedicated to J.C. makes one a scholar, I believe there are probably a billion or so bible scholars floating around.

The same qualifications for being any scholar; going to school and studying the subject. A professor of Biblical history knows much more than a joe blow who just watches History Channel shows on the Bible.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
are you now implying that virgin births, miracles and resurrection are scientificly sound? No diety is scientificly sound...just as the Adam and Eve story isn't scientificly sound. Your words Mota, not mine.

if god himself and Jesus Christ are both merely "obvious metaphors" as they are neither scientificly sound, again, then isn't the whole book a metaphor? Correct me if I'm wrong but the old testament is 100% about god and his doings...while the new testament is about Jesus Christ and his doings.


Originally posted by DigiMark007

Pretty much all of it that deals with the divine is scientifically unsound, so why is it so abhorrent to most Christians to see Jesus as the same metaphor that you can clearly see the others as?

Since both of these posts are basically the same, I'll kill both birds with one stone:

Now virgin births are not unsound. They've been observed and recorded many times in the animal kingdom, and since humans are animals, why is that so hard to believe? Being gay is not unique to humans, so why should virgin births be unique to animals?

And yes; I admit that God's existent is scientifically unsound. The reason for that is because science is only concerned with the material world, and God is transcendent/exists outside of time and space (which I know neither one of you believe anyways). So what it comes down to is that you both are hard-nosed doubters of anything that can't be seen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Technically strawman.


Tell me about it...

Evil Dead
1. you claim that the Adam and Eve story is obviosly a metaphor because it isn't scientificly sound. You, however, believe that god and Jesus are both true.......even though they are equally, if not more, scientificly unsound. Explain how this is a strawman? You do know the definition of a strawman position, right?

2. please give examples and link to sources of these virgin births among sexually reproducing species of the animal kingdom. You have piqued my interest with this.

3. you negated to mention miracles such as turning water into wine or walking on water. you also negated to mention resurrection. I'm not a genius by any stretch of the imagination but all of that appears to be scientificly unsound.

4. you admitted your diety is scientificly unsound but do not mention Jesus. Please explain how any of the items I've listed above distinguish the story of Jesus Christ from that of Adam and Eve, which you call an obvious metaphor.

High Priest
who are adam and eve are they famous ???

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Evil Dead
1. you claim that the Adam and Eve story is obviosly a metaphor because it isn't scientificly sound. You, however, believe that god and Jesus are both true.......even though they are equally, if not more, scientificly unsound. Explain how this is a strawman? You do know the definition of a strawman position, right?

2. please give examples and link to sources of these virgin births among sexually reproducing species of the animal kingdom. You have piqued my interest with this.

3. you negated to mention miracles such as turning water into wine or walking on water. you also negated to mention resurrection. I'm not a genius by any stretch of the imagination but all of that appears to be scientificly unsound.

4. you admitted your diety is scientificly unsound but do not mention Jesus. Please explain how any of the items I've listed above distinguish the story of Jesus Christ from that of Adam and Eve, which you call an obvious metaphor.

Easy down David Hume.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, it's called placing the text in proper context and analyzing what may be meant by sections that are obvious metaphors. Science is allowed to reevaluate its position as times change and people look at things from new perspective. Religion cannot be attacked for the exact same process simply because you dislike it.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending, science tries not to make statements like "this is the absolute fact of the matter" (scientists are human, thus imperfect, and a lot have made that statement). Religious texts are hardly, if ever, coined as incomplete or lacking clarity, but instead are addressed as the sole word of truth in the world.

Religion gains its institutional authority from being the mediator between truth and people. This is exacerbated by the idea that there is a specific truth through which one must use religion and the institution to obtain and follow. This is built upon the idea that there truly is a known and correct way to engage in worship and truth aquisition. If this known process is wrong or subject to revision, religion loses much of this authority. It is soely because they have the claim on truth that religion has power, if their truth is no longer true, they lose power. Much like how the protestant reformation was as much a socio-economic movement as it was a religious movement, subjective interpretation of religious literature is corrosive to the establishment of the church, and athema to the concept of a known way to acquire divine knowledge.

Thus, the process of revision hurts the church. Because it claims to know an unchanging, divinly inspired truth, changing what that truth is defines past religious truth as errorous. Because the mechanism of knowing truth is never revised (ie, biblical scholarship, social pressure, priestly revelation) this indicates that there is no specific reason to believe that the revised truth is any closer to reality than the unrevised truth.

Science is pretty much the same, with one major exception. Built into science is the idea that no single fact is ever true, just the best current explanation. This is something lost in public debates of science, where all sides want to claim scientific superiority, as it is the narrative of authority in modern times. A democrat trying to say why science supports stem cell research will rarely point out that science is neither authoratative nor ethical (which most anti-stem cell arguments are), rendering the scientific argument moot with the exception of addressing issues of specific empirical knowledge (although, still not authoritative). To show this further, I recently asked a few of my profs questions relating to post-modernism and the how we know what we know sort of stuff, the most common answer was a laugh and addmition that we cannot really know anything, just explain what we see. The best comment was "Anything you write down is wrong", which I feel to be quite demonstrative of scientific thinking, although no in how the public conceptualizes it.

lol, I guess this turned into a bit of a rant, but summarized, the specific claims to truth that a religion makes are argued against by the act of revision. Science, while not understood well publicly, integrates the fact that we cannot ever know for sure, and thus embraces revision as something that strengthens the foundation of the "truth" revealed by its methods. Mabye attacking religion for revision is unnecessary, but it undermines any claim used by religion to maintain its authority on truth. Religion cannot simultaniously be the unaltered word of God and his directives for action on earth and subject to social pressures and historical revision. blah, I will stop there for reasons of conscision

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending, science tries not to make statements like "this is the absolute fact of the matter" (scientists are human, thus imperfect, and a lot have made that statement). Religious texts are hardly, if ever, coined as incomplete or lacking clarity, but instead are addressed as the sole word of truth in the world.

In the area of actual scholarly discussion of religious text absolutes are avoided.

Originally posted by inimalist
Religion gains its institutional authority from being the mediator between truth and people. This is exacerbated by the idea that there is a specific truth through which one must use religion and the institution to obtain and follow. This is built upon the idea that there truly is a known and correct way to engage in worship and truth aquisition. If this known process is wrong or subject to revision, religion loses much of this authority. It is soely because they have the claim on truth that religion has power, if their truth is no longer true, they lose power.

And?

Originally posted by inimalist
Much like how the protestant reformation was as much a socio-economic movement as it was a religious movement, subjective interpretation of religious literature is corrosive to the establishment of the church, and athema to the concept of a known way to acquire divine knowledge.

Thinking is a perfectly valid way to seek divine knowledge.

Originally posted by inimalist
Thus, the process of revision hurts the church.

You must be aware that there is no "the church" anymore. Revision can simply branch off into new versions of the faith.

Originally posted by inimalist
Because it claims to know an unchanging, divinly inspired truth, changing what that truth is defines past religious truth as errorous. Because the mechanism of knowing truth is never revised (ie, biblical scholarship, social pressure, priestly revelation) this indicates that there is no specific reason to believe that the revised truth is any closer to reality than the unrevised truth.

Depends on the church. Many simply claim that the Bible contains the truth and that they have interpreted it.

A thinking person can see simply from the number of different faiths (in Christianity alone it tops 30,000) that the "truth" is constantly revised and can be open to interpretation. The only thing that really matters is which one you choose.

Originally posted by inimalist
Science is pretty much the same, with one major exception. Built into science is the idea that no single fact is ever true, just the best current explanation. This is something lost in public debates of science, where all sides want to claim scientific superiority, as it is the narrative of authority in modern times. A democrat trying to say why science supports stem cell research will rarely point out that science is neither authoratative nor ethical (which most anti-stem cell arguments are), rendering the scientific argument moot with the exception of addressing issues of specific empirical knowledge (although, still not authoritative). To show this further, I recently asked a few of my profs questions relating to post-modernism and the how we know what we know sort of stuff, the most common answer was a laugh and addmition that we cannot really know anything, just explain what we see. The best comment was "Anything you write down is wrong", which I feel to be quite demonstrative of scientific thinking, although no in how the public conceptualizes it.

You're making universal assumptions about thousands of different faiths again.

Originally posted by inimalist
Mabye attacking religion for revision is unnecessary.

Completely.

Originally posted by inimalist
undermines any claim used by religion to maintain its authority on truth.

I agree. I simply disagree with the claim that religion cannot be allowed to assess its texts just as a science can go back and look at evidence again.

Originally posted by inimalist
Religion cannot simultaniously be the unaltered word of God and his directives for action on earth and subject to social pressures and historical revision. blah, I will stop there for reasons of conscision

It can if one assumes that human beings are imperfect.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Evil Dead
1. you claim that the Adam and Eve story is obviosly a metaphor because it isn't scientificly sound. You, however, believe that god and Jesus are both true.......even though they are equally, if not more, scientificly unsound. Explain how this is a strawman? You do know the definition of a strawman position, right?


"A equals B, so therefore B must equal C." is a logical fallacy. Are you asking just for the sake of it?

And I already agreed that God is unscientific.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
2. please give examples and link to sources of these virgin births among sexually reproducing species of the animal kingdom. You have piqued my interest with this.


Knock yourself out...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=virgin+births+among+animals

Now since humans are also animals, why is the virgin birth of Jesus so hard to believe?

Originally posted by Evil Dead

3. you negated to mention miracles such as turning water into wine or walking on water. you also negated to mention resurrection. I'm not a genius by any stretch of the imagination but all of that appears to be scientificly unsound.
.

Even if I did, would it really matter? You don't believe in miracles which is your problem.

Originally posted by Evil Dead

4. you admitted your diety is scientificly unsound but do not mention Jesus. Please explain how any of the items I've listed above distinguish the story of Jesus Christ from that of Adam and Eve, which you call an obvious metaphor.

Jesus and Adam & Eve are two different ballgames; what are you getting at?

Devil King
But in all those cases, are you saying god was the responsable party? No. In those examples, the breeding occured when the females were seperated from males, and Mary wasn't seperated from a male. So, if the shark or komodo or snakes had given birth after being continiously in the company of a male or males and the zoos had called a press conference to announce a vigin birth, who would believe them?

Robtard
Are people really using the asexual reproductive capabilities of certain reptiles and fish as valid proof that Mary was a virgin, seriously?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Are people really using the asexual reproductive capabilities of certain reptiles and fish as valid proof that Mary was a virgin, seriously?

I guess so. wacko

Robtard
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Jesus and Adam & Eve are two different ballgames; what are you getting at?

I haven't read the whole debate, but I assume it's "if you belive one highly unlikely story to just be metaphor, why do you take the other highly unlikely story as fact?"

It's like saying the John Henry story was just a myth, because a single man couldn't dig through a mountain with just a hammer and pick, but then believing that Paul Bunyan was really 30 feet tall.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
Are people really using the asexual reproductive capabilities of certain reptiles and fish as valid proof that Mary was a virgin, seriously?

I'm not saying "Aha, see! Proof positive!"

Based on those occurrences (and considering humans are animals just like komodo dragons), I'm questioning the possibility of a human having a virgin birth.

Evil Dead
you stated in this thread that you believe that some yarns in the bible are true while others are obvious metaphors. You denied that you pick and choose. You said your basis of determining if something is true or a metaphor is if it is scientificly sound. If it isn't scientificly sound, it's an obvious metaphor.

it's the same ballgame. All of those stories (Adam & Eve, Noah's ark,jesus christ, etc.) are all scientificly unsound.

Just admit that you beleive whatever you want to believe with no basis of believing it other than you want to or don't want to. There's nothing wrong with that. There's no need to say, "I believe this is an obvious metaphor because it isn't scientificly sound"........especially when you believe all kinds of other stuff that is equally or moreso scientificly unsound.

everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. no need to try to rationalize to others, especially with rationalizations that don't hold up.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In the area of actual scholarly discussion of religious text absolutes are avoided.

And?

Thinking is a perfectly valid way to seek divine knowledge.


You must be aware that there is no "the church" anymore. Revision can simply branch off into new versions of the faith.

Depends on the church. Many simply claim that the Bible contains the truth and that they have interpreted it.

A thinking person can see simply from the number of different faiths (in Christianity alone it tops 30,000) that the "truth" is constantly revised and can be open to interpretation. The only thing that really matters is which one you choose.

You're making universal assumptions about thousands of different faiths again.

Completely.

I agree. I simply disagree with the claim that religion cannot be allowed to assess its texts just as a science can go back and look at evidence again.

It can if one assumes that human beings are imperfect.

If you want, we can quibble about things like whether scholarly discussion is a good analogy for real religious belief and whatever.

Like you pointed out, a lot of that was a rant and off topic.

Sure, I guess there are people who are religious that believe what they believe might be wrong... There may be some who accept that we cannot know...

I don't know, its probably just my stance on things, but the idea that the church (I'm using "church" as shorthand for "religious institutions". So ya, THE church doesn't exist, but ya, many churchES do) would change its dogma is akin to it admitting that it was full of crap from the beginning.

If god had particular designs for women, it was wrong for the church to change in the face of feminism, if black people are really lesser individuals, it was wrong for the church to change during the civil rights era.

It just reveals how socially constructed religion is, and, imho, how detached it is from anything remotely resembling divine truth. If that is what a specific denomination or individual wishes to wear on their sleave, far be it from me to say it can't be so.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
If you want, we can quibble about things like whether scholarly discussion is a good analogy for real religious belief and whatever.

Like you pointed out, a lot of that was a rant and off topic.

Sure, I guess there are people who are religious that believe what they believe might be wrong... There may be some who accept that we cannot know...

I don't know, its probably just my stance on things, but the idea that the church (I'm using "church" as shorthand for "religious institutions". So ya, THE church doesn't exist, but ya, many churchES do) would change its dogma is akin to it admitting that it was full of crap from the beginning.

If god had particular designs for women, it was wrong for the church to change in the face of feminism, if black people are really lesser individuals, it was wrong for the church to change during the civil rights era.

It just reveals how socially constructed religion is, and, imho, how detached it is from anything remotely resembling divine truth. If that is what a specific denomination or individual wishes to wear on their sleave, far be it from me to say it can't be so.

thumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not saying "Aha, see! Proof positive!"

Based on those occurrences (and considering humans are animals just like komodo dragons), I'm questioning the possibility of a human having a virgin birth.

Even if Mary was a hermaphrodite with fully functioning male and female reproductive organs, it would be an extremely slim chance of that happening. So either she was impregnated by a male (knowingly or unknowingly), or God did actually put "himself" inside her womb. I'm going with the former.

There's always the chance that sperm was inserted into her virgin vagina by other means than a penis and therefore she indeed did have a "virgin birth", but I doubt artificial insemination was happening back them and Jesus would still have a human father in that scenario.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Evil Dead
you stated in this thread that you believe that some yarns in the bible are true while others are obvious metaphors. You denied that you pick and choose. You said your basis of determining if something is true or a metaphor is if it is scientificly sound. If it isn't scientificly sound, it's an obvious metaphor.

it's the same ballgame. All of those stories (Adam & Eve, Noah's ark,jesus christ, etc.) are all scientificly unsound.

Just admit that you beleive whatever you want to believe with no basis of believing it other than you want to or don't want to. There's nothing wrong with that. There's no need to say, "I believe this is an obvious metaphor because it isn't scientificly sound"........especially when you believe all kinds of other stuff that is equally or moreso scientificly unsound.

everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. no need to try to rationalize to others, especially with rationalizations that don't hold up.

Adam and Eve is an obvious metaphor. A virgin birth is a lot more sound (seeing that it occurs in nature) than 6 billion people coming from just two, don't you think. And it's not me who does the "choosing", no more than an Egyptologist chooses what a given heiroglyphic means. Its scholars who find out, and then I learn through some form of media.

inimalist
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Adam and Eve is an obvious metaphor. A virgin birth is a lot more sound (seeing that it occurs in nature) than 6 billion people coming from just two, don't you think.

I would disagree

the breeding population of human females was at one point (at least this is the current understanding) reduced to, iirc, less than a dozen.

The idea of a very small amount of individuals populating the planet over the course of hundreds of thousands of years is not necessarily that outlandish.

Virgin human birth? There is no real mechanism for it, outside artificial insemination... Even then, and I don't know how this works in frogs, but the mamalian genome, at least the human one, is subject to error if people are too closely related.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
I would disagree

the breeding population of human females was at one point (at least this is the current understanding) reduced to, iirc, less than a dozen.

The idea of a very small amount of individuals populating the planet over the course of hundreds of thousands of years is not necessarily that outlandish.


At one point, there was probably only one human female, she would have been the first born with the ever so slight differences that made her "us" and separated her from her parents, though you'd need a microscope to see the differences.

I do agree that a small group could make a larger given enough time and under the right land/food conditions. But just two modern humans breeding and inbreeding, making 6 billion people of all the varied ethnicity and all within a span of just 6k years (or so) is just stupid, which is what the Adam & Eve story teaches.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
At one point, there was probably only one human female, she would have been the first born with the ever so slight differences that made her "us" and separated her from her parents, though you'd need a microscope to see the differences.

I do agree that a small group could make a larger given enough time and under the right land/food conditions. But just two modern humans breeding and inbreeding, making 6 billion people of all the varied ethnicity and all within a span of just 6k years (or so) is just stupid, which is what the Adam & Eve story teaches.

didn't he say adam and eve could be metaphorical though?

In which case it can be post hoc-ed to fit any historical model...

I agree of course with the idea of Adam and Eve being retarded. Have you see Rickey Gervais' take on Genesis?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
At one point, there was probably only one human female, she would have been the first born with the ever so slight differences that made her "us" and separated her from her parents, though you'd need a microscope to see the differences.

I do agree that a small group could make a larger given enough time and under the right land/food conditions. But just two modern humans breeding and inbreeding, making 6 billion people of all the varied ethnicity and all within a span of just 6k years (or so) is just stupid, which is what the Adam & Eve story teaches.

I know what you're referring to. She is called the "real Eve". She is not the true mother of ALL human kind. Just everyone outside of Africa. There are others in Africa which did not descend from her. However, that doesn't really change your good point.

xmarksthespot
On the above topic of virgin birth, an intact hymen does not a virgin make.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by inimalist
Have you see Rickey Gervais' take on Genesis?

Never heard of him; what's his take?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.