MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars...

[unosdostres14]

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?

 

[echo0001]

On the difference between scientific theory and psuedo theory. From http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html Go read it. You might learn something.

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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]

I do wonder if the plausibility of a pre-Adamite man has been considered by literalists.

 

[melon]

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.

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

 

[80sU2isBest]

or (3) misquoted

And if misquoted, why should I believe anything that was written about Christ and attributed to him?

 

[melon]

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

 

[Angela Harlem]

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[80sU2isBest]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Angela Harlem]

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...

 

[sulawesigirl4]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am really enjoying this thread......

 

[Dreadsox]

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?

 

[Angela Harlem]

I tend to only put belief in things which are actual fact, Dread. I'd assumed before that most people do. It seems not, however. I dont even think I could go one less step and put faith in something which is fairly substantially bogus.

 

[Dreadsox]

Have you ever learned anything about yourself and your relationships with others through reading a book of fiction?

 

[Dreadsox]

For example, there are plenty of books.... The Giving Tree for example.....That I read every year on the first day of school, to get children thinking about their relationships with their peers.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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.

If I was doing any "interpreting", you might be right.

But I'm not doing any interpreting. In fact, my statement about "melon's and 80sU2's beliefs" addresses "interpretations".

What I am talking about are things that are written in black and white, interpretation of what is written aside. I can point you to verses in which Paul clearly speaks about sin and/or nature being passed down. These things are in black and white. Now, you can say that those verses shouldn't have been included in accepted canon,a nd that is your interpretation. But what I am talking about are words that are written down in the accepted canon of both Catholics and Protestants.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I tend to only put belief in things which are actual fact, Dread. I'd assumed before that most people do. It seems not, however. I dont even think I could go one less step and put faith in something which is fairly substantially bogus.

Though you are declining to put your faith in the Bible as the word of God, you are nevertheless putting your faith in something.

The "something" you are choosing to put your faith in is the knowledge of man.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Christ didn't come down as a scientist. He spoke in the language they understood, they still thought the earth was flat.

Do you agree that if Christ is the Son Of God, he knows the truth of whether Adam and Eve existed?

If so, why would he re-inforce what he knew to be a lie by speaking of it in the context of it actually happening?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Though you are declining to put your faith in the Bible as the word of God, you are nevertheless putting your faith in something.

The "something" you are choosing to put your faith in is the knowledge of man.

But 80s, don't you accept there is a difference between believing in something for which evidence is available and believing in a religion for which there can be no evidence, but is accepted on faith alone?

 

[XHendrix24]

Do you agree that if Christ is the Son Of God, he knows the truth of whether Adam and Eve existed?

If so, why would he re-inforce what he knew to be a lie by speaking of it in the context of it actually happening?

Maybe because we don't need to know if it happened or not, and what's important is the lessons and ideas that we learn from it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But 80s, don't you accept there is a difference between believing in something for which evidence is available and believing in a religion for which there can be no evidence, but is accepted on faith alone?

Yes, there is indeed a difference. That said, you should know by now that my ultimate faith is not placed in man's wisdom. Man will be right sometimes, and sometimes he won't.

I believe that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God. Because I believe that, I believe in the Bible. Because I believe in the Bible, I believe the Bible over man when a conflict arises. Therefore, if the Bible says that God created man in God's own image, I believe it, not what man might say about.

And in my life, I have encountered evidence that God - a higher power - does exist. I know that because in a highly dramatic, "no misinterpretation is possible" sort of way, he literally, not figuratively, saved my life once. I have told that story in FYM several times.

 

[VertigoGal]

80s: So when there's hard evidence of humans existing 20,000 years ago as was mentioned before, do you completely disregard it as man getting it wrong? You willfully ignore science unless it fits your views?

Dread: I agree with you, but you wouldn't teach Giving Tree as science, and the same applies for the Bible.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80s: So when there's hard evidence of humans existing 20,000 years ago as was mentioned before, do you completely disregard it as man getting it wrong? You willfully ignore science unless it fits your views?

Dread: I agree with you, but you wouldn't teach Giving Tree as science, and the same applies for the Bible.

I don't believe there's anything in the Bible that says man didn't exist 20,000 years ago.

On things that cannot be proven, I accept the Bible's words over man's science. I don't think the Bible contradicts anything that man can prove.

 

[melon]

The trouble here is that we're dealing with different philosophies regarding religion.

Religion really is, in many ways, an open book. As long as you believe it, anything is possible and the number of excuses and interpretations are infinite.

I often see that as a great analogy for the nature of "God." He is everything and nothing. It's kind of like how Hinduism takes that concept by saying that everything, including all the various deities, are all manifestations of the same deity, "Brahman."

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you agree that if Christ is the Son Of God, he knows the truth of whether Adam and Eve existed?

If so, why would he re-inforce what he knew to be a lie by speaking of it in the context of it actually happening?

Yes I believe he is the Son of God....

No I do not know if he knows the truth of Adam and Eve .

Wouldn't it have been counterproductive of Christ to speak about Adam and Eve opposite the science of the day? There was no evidence of evolution then, and lacking that, why confuse the crud out of everyone?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Yes, there is indeed a difference. That said, you should know by now that my ultimate faith is not placed in man's wisdom. Man will be right sometimes, and sometimes he won't.

Okay, I suppose what I was trying to say is that I think there is sufficient difference between religion and scientific knowledge that I don't believe you can say someone puts their "faith" in science in the same way someone puts their "faith" in religion.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Wouldn't it have been counterproductive of Christ to speak about Adam and Eve opposite the science of the day? There was no evidence of evolution then, and lacking that, why confuse the crud out of everyone?

Not at all. Christ didn't mind raising a ruckus and speaking against things that the Pharisees held dear. So, I see no reason why he would have perpetuated the idea of Adam and Eve were it not true. Christ definitely would have known if Adam and Eve weren't real. The Bible does say that he was in the beginning with God and that he was in fact God, and it even says that Christ created everything.