Author Topic: Theory MK 2  (Read 5729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
For the heck of it I'd like to start this again.

Quote
I was in biology class the other day, we were discussing evolution and darwin and the likes and the inevitable question "I am *insert religous beleifs here* , i think this is blashpemy, can i be excused?" question came up, and responsivly i thought of darwin and evolution and how things evolved from the first single celled creatures.

So Evolutionism (or is it Evolutionaryism? wow i sound like Bush now ) bassically states that animals adapt their bodies to suit their enviroments with each generation, having the weak links die out due to not mating. now creationism (Sp? context?) says that god created the animals in one day and that they did't evolve from single celled organisms. correct?

So my theory, if i remember correctly, went sometihng along the lines of; maybe God did create animals in a evolutionist fashion but explained it to early humans in a way they could understand. Lemme see if i could clarify.. lets say God created the Dog right? Well evolution says that the dog evolved from wolves which came form earlier forms which came from fish stuff or something (sorrry for my lignorance, work with me here) but it is known that there are wolves and dogs today, wolves were tamed and nutured by humans, so they becamse less fierce and such like the wolves, so when different races of wolves around the world were tamed, those wolves had already adapted to their individual enviroments, and with that, and cross breeding, there are many different types of dog today. But that didn't start till about 10,000 B.C. if i remember my hisrotry correctly, so essentially back in the time of Adam and Eve, there were no dogs, only wolves.

now whiel writing this i was trying to keep some of my ideas from possibly conflicting while trying to get it out before forgetting it so hang in there.

What i am trying to get at is, that there very well could have only been single celled organisms in life with God there, and he gave them the essentials and knowledge and ability to grow and evolve and adapt to their surrondings as needed to stay alive and further their race. It evolved and evolved and did the whole process to where it is now the animal kingdom of the earth. Now you say "no, he created each animals" like i beleive it said in Genesis (i haven't read my bible in a long time, someone help me) well, think of it this way, if you were the a human, the very first human, didn't even kow shame enough to wear clothing , woudl you know about advanced molecular biology? Well the basis behind what i was theoriesing was that God could have explained it to where they would understand it. After all, even if they were all one, single celled organism at one time, he did create them, even before they evolved and changed into what he presented to Adam and Eve.

Now for the last item, you say "well in the bible it states that the earth was created in 6 days and the animals in two days, (first the ocean life and then the rest) evolution takes millions of yeas" Well i think , once again i think God used siplification so that the humans would understand him. He started off with the Ocean life, correct? well the first cells and creatures formed in the ocean, and then they adapted for land as they needed. As for the time discripency, God is Omnipotent (everywhere, anywhere , all the time, any time, all knowing, all powerful) right? so essentially, he does in fact exist out of time. i don't know the exact calculations and ai don't know if anybody could, but perhaps the 11 Billion years or so that the Universe has been around for, was only the equivilant of 6 days worth of work for God ( pondering what he wanted to make, and doing it )


Alright, that is my theory basically, i'm sure there are plenty of holes in it. Feel free to bring in objective commenting, poke holes if you any possible


1. Your "Thoery" has been thought of before. And Basicly what you are doing with it is trying to make evolution fit in the Bible. Not only is this theory ludacris but it denies the whole purpose of creation (which you are semi-acknoledging is true), not to mention God. You see if there was death before Adam and Eve then God's rule about not eating the fruit was empty. Therefore even if they didn't eat it they would die.

2. If you are/were a Christian you should have rejected the whole idea about evolution from the start. And you'd have never thought up this already thought up theory.

3. Yes there are kinds, for instance Dogs, cats, and humans. Now within those kinds are species. Now we all know there are different species of dog (canine) like wolf, dingo, and the comman lab. Yes a wolf species could have eventuly been bred to produce a new species (varity). I agree with that because it can be explained with Biblical principles.

4. With the days you start with the Biblical creation and then fit in the evolutionary creation. This is totaly a bad design, because in the first place says the man knows when things happened (eg. when dinos died or when other things that have happened that we find with archology). Now we really don't know those date because we weren't there to see then happen our selfs.

If you are a Christian then you'd believe God is all powerful (this has been said in the other tread). Now you try to explain him to make him seem more and more less powerful. And that is totaly wrong, GOD IS ALL POWEFUL. Just because a murderer isn't found out doesn't mean that he didn't kill. It doesn't change the fact that he killed someone, even if he wasn't convicted or if he was.

Now lets seperate the Christian Bible, science, and Evolution like this - [Bible] [science] [Evolution].

Some if not all try to slam the Bible down by using one part of it and then slaming it with their aguments. In the process the acknowldge that part of the Bible is true but then ignore other parts. Like creation in the previous tread. You took the creation days and then claimed that God got things the way they are by Evlolution. Well that doesn't work because if there are pillars holding up a roof and half of them are granite and the other half sponge the building wouldn't stay up for long.

In the theory pf Evlolution people say that everything changed and changed. Then they claim science proves that it happened. But if science can prove Evolution happened how come it can't prove that the Bible it true?

Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.

I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess.

And thats all I have to say for now.
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things

 

Offline Zeronet

  • Hanger Man
  • 29
:rolleyes: :wtf: The bible was written to be understood and is symbolic, and many parts such as the creation should not be taken at face value, its a sort of parable. Anyway, this topic IMO was a bad idea.
Got Ether?

 

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
What does IMO mean? :confused: And the Bible should be taken at face value.
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things

 

Offline diamondgeezer

IMO = In My Opinion. Basic |33+ speak.


Anyways, saying the Bible is a metaphor, and more of an analogy than an accurate history book is basically a way of excusing Christianity from all the contradiction, ambiguity and scientifically-proven inaccuracy the Bible contains. Frankly, it's a pretty lame attempt to reconcile a collection of ancient texts and wildly varying intrepretations thereof with the youth of a skeptical modern society.

 

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
IMO = In My Opinion. Basic |33+ speak.


Anyways, saying the Bible is a metaphor, and more of an analogy than an accurate history book is basically a way of excusing Christianity from all the contradiction, ambiguity and scientifically-proven inaccuracy the Bible contains. Frankly, it's a pretty lame attempt to reconcile a collection of ancient texts and wildly varying intrepretations thereof with the youth of a skeptical modern society.


What inaccuracy? And you won't be able to find one either. Unless you can prove God doesn't exist, but we all know that is impossible.

[edit] Thanks for telling me what IMO is!
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things

 

Offline diamondgeezer

The argument runs something like this:

"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Ah," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh", says Man, "that was easy," and goes on to prove that black = white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing...


Quote
Originally posted by hotsnoj
What inaccuracy?


Birthin' babies without getting knobbed aside (pardon the expression), astronomers have dated the comet which supposedly lead the three kings to Bethlehem as being several years out form the Bible. Course, that's a fairly minor point, but since I left my pocket Bible (dead handy in a religious arg... debate) at home I cannae give you any more right now.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2002, 07:29:42 am by 170 »

 

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
The argument runs something like this:

"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah, says man, but the Babel Fish s a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Ah," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh", says Man, "that was easy," and goes on to prove that black = white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing...


What?! That doesn't have anything to do with inaccuracy in in the Bible? Faith is the belief in that which something exists without proof that it does. For instance I believe that you exist even though you could, for all I know, be my brother. If something has been proved then you still can believe in it.

Now your statement has been crushed like sandstone, easily.
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things

  

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
Quote
Birthin' babies without getting knobbed aside (pardon the expression), astronomers have dated the comet which supposedly lead the three kings to Bethlehem as being several years out form the Bible. Course, that's a fairly minor point, but since I left my pocket Bible (dead handy in a religious arg... debate) at home I cannae give you any more right now.


You are forgeting that God can do anything he wants. So stop trying to prove the Bible is wrong with useing part of it (admitting it's true) and then deny that another part is true (i.e. God is all powerful).
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things

 

Offline diamondgeezer

Quote
Originally posted by hotsnoj
What?! That doesn't have anything to do with inaccuracy in in the Bible?


Nope, but it is a quote from a far more entertaining book. There is life outside of religious dogma, you know...

Quote
Faith is the belief in something that exists without proof that it does. (edited for grammer - no offence)


Yup. For example, I believe in the little grey fellas with the big eyes, even though there is no concrete proof. However, because of this faith I am labeled a UFO nut and a conspiracy theorist. Evidently belief in invisible yet all-powerful being up in the sky is different...

Quote
For instance I believe that you exist even though you could, for all I know, be my brother.


Um... well, to let me start by saying :wtf:. I'm pretty sure I exist, hold on...

*pokes self*

Yup, I seem to exist all right. And I don't think I'm your brother, unless my dear ole ma's bin telling me porkie-pies...

Quote
If something has been proved then you still can believe in it.
[/b]

YAY LOGIC!

Something can be proven but still be believed in, you say. Like, for example, gravity?

Quote
Now your statement has been crushed like sandstone, easily.


Don't you try that on with me sonny Jim, I just came out of a three hour geology lab - THREE BLOODY HOURS LOOKING AT SANDSTONE. THREE!.

Sorry, just a little stressed by the THREE HOURS OF I'm doing it again, sorry

Any case, since you're sandstone remark is in response to a quote from a piece of satirical fiction I'll let you off, but in the interests of geology I'd like to point ou that sandstone is not easily crushable. If you want to go crushing roch (I'm assuming with your bare hands here), then try a lump of kaolinsed granite - that stuff crushes up real good :nod:
« Last Edit: October 11, 2002, 07:49:55 am by 170 »

 

Offline diamondgeezer

Quote
Originally posted by hotsnoj
You are forgeting that God can do anything he wants. So stop trying to prove the Bible is wrong with useing part of it (admitting it's true) and then deny that another part is true (i.e. God is all powerful).


Sorry, I'm a bit tired and I'm struggling to wrap my brain around this - which part did I 'admit' was true? The Immaculate Conception bit? The all-powerful God bit? Cos I' don't believe any of that is true, no offence to yourself.

Hold on - the bit about the three kings? I'm not saying that the Bible has no factual basis (it's a big ole book and nobody would sit down and write/complile that much BS), and what I meant was that a comet was visible in the area around the time of the supposed birth, but not in the year that the Bible says. Sorry if that confused you... my bad.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2002, 07:56:03 am by 170 »

 

Offline HotSnoJ

  • Knossos Online!
  • 29
    • http://josherickson.org
No offence taken.

Quote
Sorry, I'm a bit tired and I'm struggling to wrap my brain around this - which part did I 'admit' was true? The Immaculate Conception bit? The all-powerful God bit? Cos I' don't believe any of that is true, no offence to yourself.

Hold on - the bit about the three kings? I'm not saying that the Bible has no factual basis (it's a big ole book and nobody would sit down and write/complile that much BS), and what I meant was that a comet was visible in the area around the time of the supposed birth, but not in the year that the Bible says. Sorry if that confused you... my bad.


No you don't quite understand. What you're trying to do is make me think that God is not all powerful. He could have made a star for the three kings. We don't know that answer. Well you do have some good points, but still you're wrong.

What I don't get is how people can say thing got here by random chance. But there is so much order. How can that be? When you look at a building do you think someone designed it? Or do you think that it just happened?
I have big plans, now if only I could see them through.

LiberCapacitas duo quiasemper
------------------------------
Nav buoy - They mark things

 

Offline diamondgeezer

Well, some of the buildings here at Leicester Uni... *shudder*

Quote
Well you do have some good points, but still you're wrong.


Ah, right. That would explain a lot of things. Well, as long as one of us is right, that's the main thing. Just make sure you let every one know that you're the one that's right, just in case they think it's them (you never know, it could happen...)


Right, I'm off to a lecture but I'll be checking in here in an hour or so - this is the most fun I've had over the net in some time :)

[EDIT] Hi Hills *waves*

 

Offline Kazashi

  • 26
I'm going to regret getting involved in this...

Quote
Originally posted by hotsnoj

2. If you are/were a Christian you should have rejected the whole idea about evolution from the start. And you'd have never thought up this already thought up theory.


I feel insulted at this comment. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but this is presumption and arrogance of a high order. Where does it say that I must believe in God et al, yet reject science? Why the hell is everyone so obsessed with the debate of Science versus Religion, rather than exploring the universe with both?

I want to ask a question - who wrote The Bible? Was it God himself? Or people? Fallable, imperfect, forgetful, regular people. The same people who misinterpret and mistranslate texts all the time. My personal opinion is that The Bible, while certainly an influential and well meaning book, is't necessarily perfect as God may have wanted. Therefore it is up to us to look into and beyond the book.

Now I will go back to my rut in the middle of everything, with religious people calling me a cold hearted scientist, and scientists calling me a religious freak. If someone thinks I'm not christian, they can take it up with God. If they think I'm not scientifically minded, then they can listen to me talk about physics until their ears bleed.

Sorry to intrude.
Blatant advertising #1: Keep the Blood flowing!

Blatant advertising #2: Visit TheDDRZone now!

 

Offline diamondgeezer

*points*

Religious freak!

:D Sorry, that amused me. Ah, small things...


Anyway, good for you. I always liked the X-Files where they mixed science and religion, like in the one with the Seraphim and the Devil...

 

Offline 01010

  • 26
I think the universe was created to party. It's a blanket statement and a phillosophy for life. :yes:
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 

Offline diamondgeezer

Not cactii, then

 

Offline CP5670

  • Dr. Evil
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
Quote
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.

I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess.


:lol: :D

Sorry, but I'm not even going to bother arguing with you... :p

 

Offline 01010

  • 26
Quote
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Not cactii, then


I never said that, Cactii are an integral part of the party plan. What better (drunken) party game than "throw the cactus at random people on the street from a third floor window". :nervous:
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 

Offline 01010

  • 26
Quote
Originally posted by hotsnoj

I thank God that he gave me a mind that can decipher this mess.

And thats all I have to say for now.


Shame he didn't give you a sense of humour to boot eh? I've read the "comics"
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 

Offline diamondgeezer

Quote
Originally posted by hotsnoj
Make no mistake. Science is based on Biblical princeples. And Evolution is an escape from reality and rooted in mans sin.



Wowser, I must have missed that one.

*points at hotsnoj and laughs heartily*

Sorry mate, but mentioning that you don't (for want of a better word) 'believe' in evolution within earshot of me is just asking for trouble. One of my student friends holds similar views, so now we're banned from discussing religion cos we just end up taking the piss out of each other :)

You know, my housemate Steve once mentioned, during a discussion about religion, that since I didn't believe in God that I was going to Hell. He said it didn't matter what kind of person I was, wether I gave money top the poor and was kind to animlas or not, I would still go to Hell if I didn't aknowledge God's authority.

Now, I don't believe in an after life, certainly not the Christian Heaven and Hell setup, so I'm not overly bothered. But still, I was slightly miffed that he had basically told me I was going to Hell, like it or not. I wasn't overly suprised since he's a very opinionated chap anyway, but all the same, I have to live with him now and every time I think about what he said I get a little bit cross.

Still, joke's on him, eh?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2002, 09:48:11 am by 170 »