MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2005, 11:29 PM   #91
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Don't just chalk it up to a "power trip", melon. Consider the spiritual ramifications (at least upon Christianity) of Adam and Eve not actually existing.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either (1) mistaken or (2) a liar. Either way, it would prove Christ to be imperfect, and therefore not the Son of God, not God in the flesh, and not capable of being the redeemer of mankind.

As for Paul, he spoke about Adam being the man by which sin came into the world and, and about Christ being the "Second Adam", by which man could be redeemed from the power of sin.

The inter-relatedness of man is a very important theme in the Bible. It is through the lineage of one man, Adam, that the sin nature is passed down to every person ever born. It is that sin nature which keeps people away from God, and it is only through eradication of the sin nature, through being "born again" in Christ that man can be saved and enter into an eternal relationship with God. That's all right there in Romans, Hebrews and other New Testament books.
Just a question. If scientists found indisputable proof that Christianity is, in fact, 'bunk'.

Would you believe it?
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 12:13 AM   #92
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 09:06 PM
On the difference between scientific theory and psuedo theory. From http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node6.html Go read it. You might learn something.

Quote:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.



There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be "falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that "the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).
Go ahead and cling to ID if you like. All the support in the world doesn't make it valid scientific theory. No "experiment or possible discovery" could adequately disprove it; therefor it is not a scientific hypothesis, you are not speaking or thinking scientifically when you haul in ID or creationism, and you are misusing the the concept of scientific theory. If it can't be tested and potentially disproved, it is not scientific theory. It's faith, belief, or gobble-de-gook (pick one).

Just thought I would point that out. I'm just tired of people propounding psuedo-theory as science when they don't even understand (or attempt to understand) the scientific process.
__________________

__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 01:41 AM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Scientific fact ~ we are presented with a great deal of variety in life on earth today, we also have a record of life in history through the fossil record and genetics. There is massive ammounts of evidence to suggest that through variation down through generations and the formation of reproductive barriers between populations new species can arise.

The scientific theory: evolutionary biology gives a framework to explain what is observed, it is based on observation,

Intelligent design rests upon an assumption; the existence of a designer/creator ~ there is no direct evidence for this therefore it's existence cannot be tested; it is not falsifiable. It is not a testable scientific theory, it has not been put through the scrutiny of peer-review before publication (ID papers are usually published in ID outlets), it is not science.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 02:02 AM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:06 PM
I do wonder if the plausibility of a pre-Adamite man has been considered by literalists.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:09 AM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Don't just chalk it up to a "power trip", melon. Consider the spiritual ramifications (at least upon Christianity) of Adam and Eve not actually existing.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either (1) mistaken or (2) a liar. Either way, it would prove Christ to be imperfect, and therefore not the Son of God, not God in the flesh, and not capable of being the redeemer of mankind.
Or neither. The New Testament was written 40 years after his Resurrection, which, considering no mass communication or printing presses, would be like relying on oral tradition from the 19th century and then writing it down in 2005: the jist of it might be reliable, but the details are mythical and/or filler.

Quote:
As for Paul, he spoke about Adam being the man by which sin came into the world and, and about Christ being the "Second Adam", by which man could be redeemed from the power of sin.

The inter-relatedness of man is a very important theme in the Bible. It is through the lineage of one man, Adam, that the sin nature is passed down to every person ever born. It is that sin nature which keeps people away from God, and it is only through eradication of the sin nature, through being "born again" in Christ that man can be saved and enter into an eternal relationship with God. That's all right there in Romans, Hebrews and other New Testament books.
I don't believe in original sin (although my Catholic nature should), so that being wrong doesn't bother me.

Have you ever come to think it could have been metaphorical? In the Pharisees' zeal for literals, they were blind to the Messiah standing right before them. No one could really question their faith; they just had an overabundance of certainty.

Millions of Christians every day find room for faith without believing in creationism.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:16 AM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



or (3) misquoted
And if misquoted, why should I believe anything that was written about Christ and attributed to him?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:17 AM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I do wonder if the plausibility of a pre-Adamite man has been considered by literalists.
Looking at Genesis with Cain marrying a woman who should not exist either means two things:

1) The entire "family tree" of the Bible is built on a clearly fraudulent foundation.

2) The entire premise is built on henotheism, meaning that the first Jewish people (Adam and Eve) were created solely by their own personal, tribal god (possibly "Yahweh," but it was not inconceivable that a separate creator god ["El"; plural: "Elohim"] would have done it with them worshipping a protector God, "Yahweh"). As such, other tribes most likely already existed on Earth, with the "Chosen People" forced to Earth after they screwed up in Paradise.

Culturally, I believe it to be very plausible.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:24 AM   #98
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:06 PM
This thread is hilarious. Why did I avoid it til now?


I have a sincere and otherwise entirely naive quetion. When were Adam and Eve supposedly around? Ie, how many thousands of years ago? A rough date will do.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:27 AM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I have a sincere and otherwise entirely naive quetion. When were Adam and Eve supposedly around? Ie, how many thousands of years ago? A rough date will do.
Why the Earth is only 6000 years old, don't ya know?

In fact, the people who created that concept in the Middle Ages believed the world was going to end after 6000 years. We're now on year 6001. "Oops."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:29 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Or neither. The New Testament was written 40 years after his Resurrection, which, considering no mass communication or printing presses, would be like relying on oral tradition from the 19th century and then writing it down in 2005: the jist of it might be reliable, but the details are mythical and/or filler.
But if the details are "mythical and or filler", on what do you base your claim that the "jist of it might be reliable"? These "Mythical details" make up the Bible. That is the source of the clam that Christ is the Messiah. If you count the "details" as "myth", why do you trust that Christ is Messiah at all? On what basis do you make that claim? You can't use the Bible as the basis - you just said it is full of myths. Is there some other book out there that you consider more reliable than the Bible that claims that Christ is the Messiah?



Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I don't believe in original sin (although my Catholic nature should), so that being wrong doesn't bother me.
Maybe not, but I'm not talking about what melon believes or what 80sU2 believes. I'm talking about core concepts of Christianity that are about written in the Bible. The fact that you believe that the Bible is not 100% correct doesn't really have any any bearing on what is actually written in the Bible.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

Millions of Christians every day find room for faith without believing in creationism.
Melon
And the only support for the argument that they've ever given me is that "sometimes Jesus spoke in analogies". But when Christ talked about Adam in Matthew, he was speaking to the Pharisees about marriage, and was referencing the physical act of God creating Adam and Eve for marriage. That's not analogy; he was speaking about the creation of Adam and Eve in the context of it actually happening.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:31 AM   #101
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:06 PM
So for real, they didn't exist say...20,000 years ago, like scientists have hard proof of, of Aboriginals, for example, existing here in Australia? The bible fully reckons that the world is only a few thousand years old, and as a respected fellow (80sU2) stated above, if they are proven to be untrue, then Christianity can be debunked?


Um...
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:34 AM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Maybe not, but I'm not talking about what melon believes or what 80sU2 believes. I'm talking about core concepts of Christianity that are about written in the Bible. The fact that you believe that the Bible is not 100% correct doesn't really have any any bearing on what is actually written in the Bible.
Actually, the theology of “original sin” as you are describing it is only one way of interpreting the Bible and it only one strand of Christian tradition. You do us all a disservice when you make the assumption that your brand of Christianity is the only true one. The mere fact that the Bible is a literary text and we humans have to read it in order to make meaning out of it would seem to suggest that multiple interpretations are going to be possible and even expected.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:36 AM   #103
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest





And the only support for the argument that they've ever given me is that "sometimes Jesus spoke in analogies". But when Christ talked about Adam in Matthew, he was speaking to the Pharisees about marriage, and was referencing the physical act of God creating Adam and Eve for marriage. That's not analogy; he was speaking about the creation of Adam and Eve in the context of it actually happening.
Christ didn't come down as a scientist. He spoke in the language they understood, they still thought the earth was flat.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:40 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:06 PM
I am really enjoying this thread......
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:43 AM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Why does it have to be one or the other?

Does the Bible contain historical facts? Yes..
Does the Bible contain myths/legends? Yes..

Was the Bible writeen to be a historical or scientific document?

NO

Why would you attempt to use it as such?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com