Or are you going to claim that some Christians believe that the Heaven will be full of sheep? There are certain instances in the bible
where the word "lamb" is used metaphorically, not literally, and every single Christian in existence understands and accepts that.
when i talk about biblical literalists i mean people who take the bible literally, except when it's obvious that it's metaphorical, as in the case of lambs.
But there's already a subjective interpretation right there. What is "obvious" to someone might not be so obvious to someone else.
As I said, nobody takes the bible literally. Every single person has an interpretation of it. There's no such a thing as a "biblical literalist". There are only interpretations.
And even if we assumed for a moment that the universe was really just 6000 years old, how does that prove that evolution doesn't happen?
because evolution needs more time than 6000 years.
No, it doesn't. Evolution is happening all the time. Every offspring is different from its parents, and different from every other living being. That's evolution happening.
the bible says that animals bring forth after their kind
Where exactly?
If we assume for a moment that the story of creation in the bible is a parable and that the universe really is billions of years old, is there anything else in the bible that would contradict evolution?
i'm sure there is, but i can't come up with anything right now, and i don't have so much knowledge about this.
At least you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.
There you go with the misconception that evolution is about how life came to be.
if you believe in evolution, then you also have to believe that life started from non-living matter.
Why do I have to believe that? Who is forcing me? Certainly not the theory of evolution.
Science requires proof. It's that simple.
science doesn't always require proof. look at the theory of big bang and evolution for example.
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean it isn't there.
That's the difference between you and science: Science doesn't "believe" in things. Science observes, measures and presents hypotheses and theories to explain those observations. Science requires actual tangible evidence, not just folktales.
the things that religions and folktales talk about were discovered by ancient scientists.
if you believe in evolution, then you also have to believe that life started from non-living matter.
I submit that anyone that believes in the bible must believe that life was created from non-living matter. Adam, for example, was created from mud and some hocus pocus.
nfq wrote:
science doesn't always require proof. look at the theory of big bang and evolution for example.
Let me see:
marzojr wrote:
Here are a few relevant articles (and series of articles): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, [...]. Not that I think you will read any of them or that they will change your mind.
(emphasis added) QED.
To that link, I will add this: Evidence for the Big Bang, along with the same prediction (BTW, stock creationist arguments get stock replies).
Warp wrote:
As I said, nobody takes the bible literally. Every single person has an interpretation of it. There's no such a thing as a "biblical literalist". There are only interpretations.
I will also submit that anyone that claims to interpret the bible literally must pick and chose what parts he is going to interpret literally and what parts he must discard or hand-wave or explain away. Why? Well, already in genesis there are two different, irreconcilable accounts of creation: they differ by chronology, giving different temporal orders for the creation of man and animals. They cannot both be true: man cannot have been created before and after animals were created. Hence, creationists must pick which they believe is the correct one and which will be hand-waved away with unhealthy doses of apologetics.
Warp wrote:
nfq wrote:
the bible says that animals bring forth after their kind
Where exactly?
It is not like it really matters; "kind" is rather vague in the bible, opening the way for creationists to interpret it as meaning "anything that makes evolution false": some "kinds" compose single species, others compose whole genera, with any given kind changing to be broader as a speciation event happens. This "fluidity" of kinds is important, make note of it.
But the kicker is that the bible does not state anywhere that the "kinds" are fixed; that comes from Plato. "Kinds" changing over time would be entirely consistent with evolution, removing one anti-evolution argument from the table: consider how fluid the concept is to creationists already (see, I said it was important...).
Not that any discussion with nfq is going to be fruitful.
i disagree. i never discuss things that are not fruitful. i doubt it's even possible to have a discussion without fruits.
Warp wrote:
But there's already a subjective interpretation right there. What is "obvious" to someone might not be so obvious to someone else.
As I said, nobody takes the bible literally. Every single person has an interpretation of it. There's no such a thing as a "biblical literalist". There are only interpretations.
true, but some people take the bible more literally than others. the lamb thing is obviously metaphorical. like you yourself said: every christian knows it's not supposed to be taken literally.
don't take the term "biblical literalist" so literally.
No, it doesn't. Evolution is happening all the time. Every offspring is different from its parents, and different from every other living being. That's evolution happening.
nobody argues that variations happen (because it's a fact). what i meant is of course that 6000 years is not enough time for a single celled organism to change into a human.
Where exactly?
genesis 1:24
Why do I have to believe that? Who is forcing me? Certainly not the theory of evolution.
the theory of evolution forces you to believe that life comes from nonliving material, because how else could life have come into being? it sounds strange to think that god would snap his fingers and create the first living things, and then let evolution take over. evolution makes god superfluous. it explains too much about the origin of species/lifeforms.
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean it isn't there.
there is also proof for many things that religions claim (afterlife, for example). i know you don't accept the proof, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Now you are being hilarious.
if you believe in evolution, it's hilarious to think that there could have been scientists in the past who knew more about the world than modern scientists.
evolution says that we had less knowledge about the world before, but creation says that we were created perfect, so we had better knowledge about the world in the past.
marzojr wrote:
Adam, for example, was created from mud and some hocus pocus.
incorrect. life can only come from life. and the bible says that god is life.
trivia: adam = atom.
Well, already in genesis there are two different, irreconcilable accounts of creation: they differ by chronology, giving different temporal orders for the creation of man and animals. They cannot both be true: man cannot have been created before and after animals were created.
it might seem contradictory, but it's not. in the beginning the bible also says that men and women were created at the same time, but later it says that eve was created later (from the rib). that's not a contradiction either, if you understand it.
an important thing to understand about creation is that things don't just pop into existence. "creation" (or evolution) is a slow process. it takes millions of years.
You can continue your conversation with Warp, but answer me this: what makes the Bible reliable evidence? You're saying, "the bible says x, so x is true.", but why should you believe the Bible?
ok, i'll answer this too. i believe in many things in the bible because it has turned out to be right about many things, and other holy scriptures agree with it too.
i don't know if you should/could believe in the bible if you haven't found any evidence that it's true. the bible is not so important nowadays anymore. but in the past, it would have been good to believe in it even if you don't understand everything about it, because it's divinely inspired, so it transcends human intelligence. jesus says that "happy is he who believes without seeing". it can sometimes be good to believe even if you have no evidence, because you can't get the evidence without believing.
You're extending it based on your own personal feelings. Why wouldn't it make sense for God to create the spark of life, and let evolution take over? What if he thought evolution was a good idea? Just because you say it doesn't make sense doesn't make that true. I say it makes perfect sense.
to say that god created the first lifeforms and then evolution took over reminds me of the "god of the gaps": we don't know how life got started, so we fill that gap with "god did it". i think that if we're going to fill gaps with gods, we should fill all of them and say that god does everything.
as far as i know, there are only two things in the world that can do things: natural laws and consciousness/free-will (some fundamentalist atheists say that free will does not exist because our brain too is run by natural laws). atheists believe that natural laws are the creators of everything, and theists believe that consciousness is the creator of everything. atheists usually fill the gaps of knowledge with natural laws or chance.
Or you could take the opposite approach, and say that since we already discovered so many things that God didn't have to do, then we may as well think that God did nothing! But why be so binary-absolutist about it?
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
(emphasis added). Care to take a guess as to how many of the claims in the articles you linked to have been rebutted -- years ago -- in that link I had posted earlier?
nfq wrote:
it might seem contradictory, but it's not. in the beginning the bible also says that men and women were created at the same time, but later it says that eve was created later (from the rib). that's not a contradiction either, if you understand it.
My point was that a literal interpretation is impossible. If you hand-wave the contradiction in any way (as you do), then you have proved my point -- you are not interpreting it literally. The very fact that there is need for apologetics shows that the bible cannot be literally true -- not all of it. And if at least part of it is false (including the passages you alleged were "written by the devil" -- you then get stuck in the guessing game of trying to find what, if anything, is true.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
No, it doesn't. Evolution is happening all the time. Every offspring is different from its parents, and different from every other living being. That's evolution happening.
nobody argues that variations happen (because it's a fact). what i meant is of course that 6000 years is not enough time for a single celled organism to change into a human.
So what you are basically saying is that "evolution happens but it doesn't happen". Way to go.
Why do I have to believe that? Who is forcing me? Certainly not the theory of evolution.
the theory of evolution forces you to believe that life comes from nonliving material, because how else could life have come into being?
No, it doesn't. The theory of evolution does not say how life came to be. If anything "forces" me to believe that life came from nonliving material, it would be something else than the theory of evolution (eg. a conviction of atheism).
The theory of evolution is not atheist nor theist. It doesn't force you into believing anything, especially not something which it isn't even trying to explain.
Your mistake is to think that the theory of evolution has been invented to explain a universe without God, and thus if you believe in evolution you must believe that no God exists. They are completely unrelated things. Just because the majority of atheists consider the theory of evolution to be the truth doesn't imply that everybody who considers evolution to be truth must be atheist.
The theory of evolution exists to explain observations. It's that simple. It takes no stance on theism or the origin of life.
it sounds strange to think that god would snap his fingers and create the first living things, and then let evolution take over. evolution makes god superfluous. it explains too much about the origin of species/lifeforms.
Wow, that's a new one. "The theory is too good because it explains too well how life evolved. Thus it must be false, because it would leave too little for God to do." This is the first time I hear the argument of the theory of evolution being too good to be true.
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean it isn't there.
there is also proof for many things that religions claim (afterlife, for example). i know you don't accept the proof, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Now you are deliberately confusing the colloquial word "proof" with the scientific word "proof", which are two different things.
Scientific proof (or more precisely, scientific evidence, as "proof" is more related to mathematics than to physics) is something which can be observed, measured, repeated, corroborated by third-parties and be subjected to extensive peer review.
In colloquial parlance "proof" is a much looser term, meaning any anecdotal evidence that has no scientific weight nor validity. You just have to take it at face value without seeing for yourself.
Of course you probably know this, but choose to confuse the two usages anyways, just for the sake of argument.
Now you are being hilarious.
if you believe in evolution, it's hilarious to think that there could have been scientists in the past who knew more about the world than modern scientists.
I don't even understand what your argument is here.
evolution says that we had less knowledge about the world before
Evolution says no such thing. Evolution is all about how lifeforms change over time. No more, no less.
Gentlemen, this thread has turned into a farce a long time ago. Could you please drop this retarded bullshit of a discussion and do something more productive instead? If none of you are going to ask Bisqwit questions that don't challenge his religiousness in a way anymore, I request this thread be locked for a lack of better option.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
My point was that a literal interpretation is impossible. If you hand-wave the contradiction in any way (as you do), then you have proved my point -- you are not interpreting it literally.
there's no contradiction there, if you take it literally enough... you see, if you take it literally, god first created angelic androgynous beings. genesis1 says that he created them "male and female" (hermaphrodite). in genesis2, eve (the rib) was separated from this hermaphrodite being. so, eve wasn't created later, she was created at the same time as adam, so genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. it's not contradictory to have two different creation accounts, because god could have created/modified humans several times.
Bag of Magic Beans wrote:
Or you could take the opposite approach, and say that since we already discovered so many things that God didn't have to do, then we may as well think that God did nothing! But why be so binary-absolutist about it?
the world is made of.. binary.. language... male and female, right-wing and left-wing, pAst and futuRe, religion and science, belief and knowledge, yin and yang. religious people want to live in the past. atheists want to go into the future.
Warp wrote:
So what you are basically saying is that "evolution happens but it doesn't happen". Way to go.
no. i'm saying that species change, but they don't change ("evolve") the way that the theory of evolution says they change, ie. a single celled organism doesn't turn into fish eventually.
Wow, that's a new one. "The theory is too good because it explains too well how life evolved. Thus it must be false, because it would leave too little for God to do." This is the first time I hear the argument of the theory of evolution being too good to be true.
lol... but i'm talking about a hypothetical situation here. IF the theory of evolution was true, it would make god kinda useless, which is exactly what it has done (because it has convinced most people that it's true): most people no longer believe that god created species, they believe that god created the first living thing and then let evolution take over. some christians don't even believe that god created the first living things, they just think that he snapped his fingers before the big bang to make all the natural laws. if evolution is true, it makes god superfluous and almost deistic.
There is an old Kabbalistic saying that goes something like this: "The breath becomes a stone; the stone becomes a plant; the plant becomes an animal; the animal becomes a man; the man becomes a spirit; and the spirit becomes a god."
I was under the impression Bisqwit was leaving. You know, for good. Vanishing. Poof, gone. Aparrently I was wrong at some point, so since he still seems to be around:
Given that you have "left" tasvideos and moved on, are you still interested in games? If so, which? Things like Go, Mega Man, etc. Do they still interest you, or have you moved on from those as well?
If yes, do you still watch TASes on occasion? If so, which? What do you look for in them?
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
nfq wrote:
religious people want to live in the past. atheists want to go into the future.
That does not represent the truth at all. Many religions focus on spiritual evolution. And many atheists just don't want to think about the future, the past or anything.
I was under the impression Bisqwit was leaving. You know, for good. Vanishing. Poof, gone. Aparrently I was wrong at some point, so since he still seems to be around:
I think that his main point was that he wanted to relinquish his ownership and the admin duties of the tasvideos site rather than stopping visiting completely.
Science also teaches people to stop thinking. It says "We've done the thinking for you and we're much smarter and know more about the subject than you. So just take the things we teach you for the truth and it'll make you seem as smart as us."
