Support NeoGAF

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I thought DNA deteriorated much sooner than 400,000 years.

it does, and it's reason enough to be somewhat suspicious of the data, in particular since he refers back to an earlier extraction by, guess what, the same person / team.

Not that I feel that there is anything particularly wrong with it, I mean: the regular hypothesis's about human evolution are downright silly in their simplicity to begin with, but there is that thing about evidence having to be good and all.

 

[astroturfing]

But I don't disagree with any of that. What I find strange, however, is that people would put science on a pedestal whenever the topic of religion comes up. Nobody is claiming that religion created 747 airliners instead of science. Science and religion are both just societal phenomena, so why should one be "better" than the other?

nice try "oh they're both just social phenomena, so they're equal because they are the same thing!"... nah. mass shootings are a social phenomenon, doesn't mean they're a good thing.

modern science is an immensily impressive endeavor, a self-correcting process of trying to figure things out about our complex reality, and build on that.. religion not so much.

we have scientists to thank for literally every single medicine and cure, just as an example.

 

[Rad-]

Amazing.

 

[Radec]

VESPER!

 

[Cloud Strife]

nice try "oh they're both just social phenomena, so they're equal because they are the same thing!"... nah. mass shootings are a social phenomena, doesn't mean they're a good thing.

modern science is an immensily impressive endeavor, a self-correcting process of trying to figure things out about our complex reality, and build on that.. religion not so much.

we have scientists to thank for literally every single medicine and cure, just as an example.

Yes, and Hitler's scientists were great blokes too.

Just like religion, Science is not perfect.

 

[astroturfing]

Yes, and Hitler's scientists were great blokes too.

Just like religion, Science is not perfect.

you're talking about specific people now, don't be silly. has nothing to do with the scientific method or science as a process. yeah a person can be a shithead and use things to do bad things., so?

also yeah, some of "Hitler's" scientists (i guess you mean scientists who happened to be German while the nazis were in power) were pretty great. didn't many of them jump to America and help build the space program? that classifies as great to me.

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

Yes, Giorgio and Von Dan are right after all.

 

[Cloud Strife]

you're talking about specific people now, don't be silly. has nothing to do with the scientific method or science as a process. yeah a person can be a shithead and use things to do bad things., so?.

mass shootings are a social phenomenon, doesn't mean they're a good thing.
we have scientists to thank for literally every single medicine and cure, just as an example.

And these weren't/aren't specific people? Science and Religion are social phenomena that involve PEOPLE. Doesn't matter if they are good or bad. Doesn't matter what sort of pedestal you hold science up to, it's anecdotal. We have a lot to thank Science for, and there are people that are just fucked in the head.

also yeah, some of "Hitler's" scientists (i guess you mean scientists who happened to be German while the nazis were in power) were pretty great. didn't many of them jump to America and help build the space program? that classifies as great to me.

 

[jmdajr]

I thought DNA deteriorated much sooner than 400,000 years.

I thought we could go back a couple of million.

And that's why we can't bring back dinos

edit: different topic yes, just making chit chat.

 

[theJohann]

nice try "oh they're both just social phenomena, so they're equal because they are the same thing!"... nah. mass shootings are a social phenomena, doesn't mean they're a good thing.

modern science is an immensily impressive endeavor, a self-correcting process of trying to figure things out about our complex reality, and build on that.. religion not so much.

we have scientists to thank for literally every single medicine and cure, just as an example.

If by the word you mean "more logical" or "more prone to cause technological/medical developments", then yes, science is "better" than religion.

But like I said, nobody is claiming that religion invented medicine instead of science. You are saying science is more logical than religion and few would argue with that. You might as well say that a wooden chair is browner in colour than religion, and therefore better. Nobody is religious because he or she was enticed by their religion's rationality. Logicality is an improper plane to compare the two concepts. If you were to look back at DanteFox's post which I quoted, I was agreeing with him that people should not use science's grounding in logic and progress to attack religion, which is based on faith and tradition.

You brought up mass shootings, which is a moral issue, so it's irrelevant. I am in no way saying that all societal phenomena are equal, and I most certainly did not say that science and religion are equal. I said that we are comparing the two concepts in the wrong way because they are not equal. That is all.

 

[SpectreFire]

Fucking Halo was right.

 

[Opiate]

If by the word you mean "more logical" or "more prone to cause technological/medical developments", then yes, science is "better" than religion.

But like I said, nobody is claiming that religion invented medicine instead of science. You are saying science is more logical than religion and few would argue with that. You might as well say that a wooden chair is browner in colour than religion, and therefore better. Nobody is religious because he or she was enticed by their religion's rationality. Logicality is an improper plane to compare the two concepts. If you were to look back at DanteFox's post which I quoted, I was agreeing with him that people should not use science's grounding in logic and progress to attack religion, which is based on faith and tradition.

You brought up mass shootings, which is a moral issue, so it's irrelevant. I am in no way saying that all societal phenomena are equal, and I most certainly did not say that science and religion are equal. I said that we are comparing the two concepts in the wrong way because they are not equal. That is all.

Okay. On what grounds can any methodological system be better than another, according to you? That is an honest question.

 

[CornBurrito]

So, basically, it's the atmosphere being prepared for living creatures, both for breathing and for navigation. This doesn't mean I'm right in my interpretation, but that's just how I've always viewed Genesis.

How does this interpretation make sense? According to Genesis, plants existed BEFORE the sun was created. You're saying this works because plants existed, and then god made the atmosphere fit for living creatures. But plants are living creatures. And specifically the passage is talking about land plants (seed bearing plants and trees) which REQUIRE sunlight to grow. Evolutionarily speaking, the main benefit of moving to land for plants was greater access to sunlight.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

How does this interpretation make sense? According to Genesis, plants existed BEFORE the sun was created. You're saying this works because plants existed, and then god made the atmosphere fit for living creatures. But plants are living creatures. And specifically the passage is talking about land plants (seed bearing plants and trees) which REQUIRE sunlight to grow. Evolutionarily speaking, the main benefit of moving to land for plants was greater access to sunlight.

this thread is a mess geez. But I do want to play devils advocate here

The sun doesn't need to exist for plants to survive. (See full spectrum lamps) The Bible repeatedly describes god as: the light, light of the world, he appears as a burning bush -- he is described as pure light/energy both literally and figuratively. It would stand to reason (as much one could with the creation account) that God simply being God would be enough for these plants to photosynthesize or whatever have you.

But of course this is if you take the account very literally which I don't think you should do. Secondly I don't think you're going to get anywhere debating specifics in something like this. It seems like a good way to lose your mind.

edit: Also, when you have a being who is supposedly omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient its hard to say "the sun didn't exist - plants would die lol gotcha!" Seems a little silly to me as an argument. I cant imagine that something like this couldn't be easily explained away by some magical rule bending.

 

[theJohann]

Okay. On what grounds can any methodological system be better than another, according to you? That is an honest question.

I feel that we should establish "better" here. We can say that system X does 10 things better than system Y, while the latter only does 3 things better than system X, and therefore the aggregate of these things makes system X, as a whole, superior to system Y.

Or, we could argue that while system Y only does 3 things better than system X, it is still superior because those 3 things are more valuable and relevant to the context of comparison.

Or, we could simply say that X and Y are not fit for comparison in the first place.

I'll be honest here and say that I do not feel qualified to answer your question. It is my personal opinion that it differs for each case and it depends very much on the expectations of the person making the comparison; if a person compares religion and science looking for the option that is the most rational, science would be the better choice; if a person compares the two seeking for a sense of inner fulfilment, then religion would be more appropriate.

If you were to compare the two looking to see which the “better methodological system” is, I would ask you, "better in what?" In its logical consistency? In its adaptability? In its stringency? I myself am not sure, but these are subjective and therefore my opinion does not matter.

 

[KHarvey16]

I feel that we should establish "better" here. We can say that system X does 10 things better than system Y, while the latter only does 3 things better than system X, and therefore the aggregate of these things makes system X, as a whole, superior to system Y.

Or, we could argue that while system Y only does 3 things better than system X, it is still superior because those 3 things are more valuable and relevant to the context of comparison.

Or, we could simply say that X and Y are not fit for comparison in the first place.

I'll be honest here and say that I do not feel qualified to answer your question. It is my personal opinion that it differs for each case and it depends very much on the expectations of the person making the comparison; if a person compares religion and science looking for the option that is the most rational, science would be the better choice; if a person compares the two seeking for a sense of inner fulfilment, then religion would be more appropriate.

If you were to compare the two looking to see which the “better methodological system” is, I would ask you, "better in what?" In its logical consistency? In its adaptability? In its stringency? I myself am not sure, but these are subjective and therefore my opinion does not matter.

Science is used to explain the world around us, so that's the only real relevant point of comparison and it's the one being discussed here(and is, I think, the only form of comparison ever made between the two).

 

[theJohann]

Science is used to explain the world around us, so that's the only real relevant point of comparison and it's the one being discussed here(and is, I think, the only form of comparison ever made between the two).

I would argue that religion was conceived to explain the world around us as well, just a different aspect of the world. Morality, purpose, meaning, and all of these grey areas. Many people do not turn to science to answer such questions. Recently, however, this has been changing.

 

[KHarvey16]

I would argue that religion was conceived to explain the world around us as well, just a different aspect of the world. Morality, purpose, meaning, and all of these grey areas. Many people do not turn to science to answer such questions. Recently, however, this has been changing.

I'm not sure how you could believe that. Did religion have anything to say about the suggestion the sun was the center of the solar system? I mean, religion makes very specific claims about the physical world all the time. Global floods and the age of the universe just to name an additional two that immediately spring to mind.

You might personally limit the influence of religion to answering questions like what the meaning of life is but that isn't true for everyone now and certainly not the norm for religion's history.

 

[theJohann]

I'm not sure how you could believe that. Did religion have anything to say about the suggestion the sun was the center of the solar system? I mean, religion makes very specific claims about the physical world all the time. Global floods and the age of the universe just to name an additional two that immediately spring to mind.

You might personally limit the influence of religion to answering questions like what the meaning of life is but that isn't true for everyone now and certainly not the norm for religion's history.

If you're looking to religion for factual explanations about our physical reality, then you will be disappointed. That is what I am saying.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I'm not sure how you could believe that. Did religion have anything to say about the suggestion the sun was the center of the solar system? I mean, religion makes very specific claims about the physical world all the time. Global floods and the age of the universe just to name an additional two that immediately spring to mind.

You might personally limit the influence of religion to answering questions like what the meaning of life is but that isn't true for everyone now and certainly not the norm for religion's history.

Religion definitely overreaches in some areas, but I think John is onto something. Science tends to be more external. Religion mostly is about the human condition. Human Ideals and qualities. Sense of purpose and or peace. Yes religion does extend its hand past that but no one becomes a priest because they want to prove the universe was created in 7 days --- and I cant imagine anyone converting to any religion because of what it has to say on natural matters. Mostly everyone that is religious is religious for those abstract internal human ideals. Science doesn't deal with that too often and I dont think it will anytime soon.

 

[Anura]

Religion definitely overreaches in some areas, but I think John is onto something. Science tends to be more external. Religion mostly is about the human condition. Human Ideals and qualities. Sense of purpose and or peace. Yes religion does extend its hand past that but no one becomes a priest because they want to prove the universe was created in 7 days --- and I cant imagine anyone converting to any religion because of what it has to say on natural matters. Mostly everyone that is religious is religious for those abstract internal human ideals. Science doesn't deal with that too often and I dont think it will anytime soon.

I think this is very true. To be fair though you really don't need a religion to do it. It simply acts as one path of many to find your way in the world.

And actually, I think that's all just fine even I don't believe in religion. It's kinda why the hardcore subgroup of atheists annoy me to no end.

 

[Goliath]

Religion definitely overreaches in some areas, but I think John is onto something. Science tends to be more external. Religion mostly is about the human condition. Human Ideals and qualities. Sense of purpose and or peace. Yes religion does extend its hand past that but no one becomes a priest because they want to prove the universe was created in 7 days --- and I cant imagine anyone converting to any religion because of what it has to say on natural matters. Mostly everyone that is religious is religious for those abstract internal human ideals. Science doesn't deal with that too often and I dont think it will anytime soon.

Of course. Religion deals with the problems and questions people run into everyday. But religion also attempts to build up credit and trust by convincing people that it knows where they came from and where they will go.

Now the truth is people in general don't really have to ponder where they came from. How humans, plants and animals were formed. So some of the really religious easily except creationism as the answer and ignore facts because they truly don't care to answer that question accurately. They care more about their moral choices currently and where they will end up in the end and disputing their book's interpretation of creation might lead them to question everything.

 

[KHarvey16]

If you're looking to religion for factual explanations about our physical reality, then you will be disappointed. That is what I am saying.

Religion definitely overreaches in some areas, but I think John is onto something. Science tends to be more external. Religion mostly is about the human condition. Human Ideals and qualities. Sense of purpose and or peace. Yes religion does extend its hand past that but no one becomes a priest because they want to prove the universe was created in 7 days --- and I cant imagine anyone converting to any religion because of what it has to say on natural matters. Mostly everyone that is religious is religious for those abstract internal human ideals. Science doesn't deal with that and I dont think it will anytime soon.

A question for both of you then: what do you believe drives the embarrassingly low percentage of people who accept evolution in the US?

 

[DoubleTake]

Ha Im in an Anthropology class and my teacher had to completely redo one of his lectures because of a find that was made in in Georgia near the Caucasus(spelling?)

Basically the previous Model for human ancestry went like this.

Australopithecus -> Homo Habilis -> Homo Erectus

Erectus has 3 sub groups: Neanderthalensis, Floresiansis, and Sapiens. Each inhabited different parts of the world. Nean(West Asia/Europe), Flor(Indonesia), Sapiens(Africa).

Sapiens are obviously the only one to survive.

The crazy thing though is the find in Georgia has 5 different individuals with features that indicate they belong to different subgroups. They range from Habilis to all the subgroups of Erectus. These individuals have no reason being buried together, and in Georgia of all places.

The find also dates back older than Habilis.

The significance of the find is that there may not be any sub species of Homo Habliis or Erectus at all. The guy that found them Lordkipandze is arguing that all of the Homo genus are Erectus and they simply have differing body structures much like we do today.

This would make sense because think about it. Modern humans havent been around very long and we are incredibly dimorphic in structure. Early homos who were around for Millions of years could have had even greater skeletal dimorphism.

So basically the flow would be changed to this if Lordkipandze's theory is confirmed:

Australopithiceans -> Homo Erectus

Huge change if you think about it.

 

[Anura]

A question for both of you then: what do you believe drives the embarrassingly low percentage of people who accept evolution in the US?

Idiots overreacting mostly...

But I think a huge part the inability of people to question why they believe in god and what god means to them to them. And I don't mean asking does he exist but instead a deep inflection on morality and why they might need their god to play a role.

As I said I'm an atheist so I'm coming at this from the outside but it seems most people don't want to or can't question things and simply just nod and agree with the outdated dogma. They don't see the need to think about the bigger picture or aren't educated enough to do so

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I think this is very true. To be fair though you really don't need a religion to do it. It simply acts as one path of many to find your way in the world.

And actually, I think that's all just fine even I don't believe in religion. It's kinda why the hardcore subgroup of atheists annoy me to no end.

I think thats fair.

Of course. Religion deals with the problems and questions people run into everyday. But religion also attempts to build up credit and trust by convincing people that it knows where they came from and where they will go.

Now the truth is people in general don't really have to ponder where they came from. How humans, plants and animals were formed. So some of the really religious easily except creationism as the answer and ignore facts because they truly don't care to answer that question accurately. They care more about their moral choices currently and where they will end up in the end and disputing their book's interpretation of creation might lead them to question everything.

Well this is false. And the reason why religion was created in the first place and why science is so successful for humans. Religions would not be as popular if this wasn't the number 1 question that humans face. Where do we come from and where are we going?

A question for both of you then: what do you believe drives the embarrassingly low percentage of people who accept evolution in the US?

Religion is a factor certainly. I maintain it overreaches. But I think the public schools system is a factor as well. I see nothing wrong with believing in religion and evolution. Both religion and evolution have become dirty words and I think they both could use rebranding.

 

[dispensergoinup]

Legitimately reading the thread and you drop this bomb on me, oh my god my sides hahah

 

[Nozem]

Okay. On what grounds can any methodological system be better than another, according to you? That is an honest question.

I'd say the one that contributes the most to humankinds health, happiness and quality of life.

 

[Goliath]

I think thats fair.

Well this is false. And the reason why religion was created in the first place and why science is so successful for humans. Religions would not be as popular if this wasn't the number 1 question that humans face. Where do we come from and where are we going?

You miss understand what I said. I said that religion built up its audience off of having the answers of where we came from and where we are going. But CURRENTLY your everyday American born into a Christian house hold does not have to ponder where we came from on a regular basis. It's not a question people go out of their way to answer religously. They worry about who they will marry, where they will live, how they will eat but not where did life come from.

Now people who do actively want to know where we came from go into some form of Science. And no, Science is not so successful for humans because some branches attempt to study where we came from. Science is successful because it attempts to BETTER our lives with tangable knowledge and products that help us. Early medicine and such were not necessarily attempts at explaining where we came from. Just trying to understand the world currently as it is.

 

[Tesseract]

da fuk is going on in here.

 

[Lijik]

I cant believe this lmao

 

[CornBurrito]

this thread is a mess geez. But I do want to play devils advocate here

The sun doesn't need to exist for plants to survive. (See full spectrum lamps) The Bible repeatedly describes god as: the light, light of the world, he appears as a burning bush -- he is described as pure light/energy both literally and figuratively. It would stand to reason (as much one could with the creation account) that God simply being God would be enough for these plants to photosynthesize or whatever have you.

But of course this is if you take the account very literally which I don't think you should do. Secondly I don't think you're going to get anywhere debating specifics in something like this. It seems like a good way to lose your mind.

edit: Also, when you have a being who is supposedly omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient its hard to say "the sun didn't exist - plants would die lol gotcha!" Seems a little silly to me as an argument. I cant imagine that something like this couldn't be easily explained away by some magical rule bending.

Actually, this line of argument doesn't entirely work either. My criticism doesn't simply depend on the plants dying without a sun. Genesis seems to clearly state that the sun existed after plants.We can date both and land plants are far younger.

 

[Red Mage]

How does this interpretation make sense? According to Genesis, plants existed BEFORE the sun was created. You're saying this works because plants existed, and then god made the atmosphere fit for living creatures. But plants are living creatures. And specifically the passage is talking about land plants (seed bearing plants and trees) which REQUIRE sunlight to grow. Evolutionarily speaking, the main benefit of moving to land for plants was greater access to sunlight.

In English, you're right. The Hebrew word for "made" (asah) refers to an action completed in the past. So the proper translation is "God had made" rather than "God made." This would suggest God created the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth "day." Kind of like "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and Earth..." (hashamayim we ha' erets -- which means the entire universe). In other words, the first "day" of creation starts with God "brooding" or "hovering" (the word means like a mother bird over her eggs) over the waters of the deep, with lots of stuff already in place.

Like I said, I may not be right, but I am applying what I know with what the scriptures actually say. *shrug*

 

[Lothar]

In English, you're right. The Hebrew word for "made" (asah) refers to an action completed in the past. So the proper translation is "God had made" rather than "God made." This would suggest God created the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth "day." Kind of like "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and Earth..." (hashamayim we ha' erets -- which means the entire universe). In other words, the first "day" of creation starts with God "brooding" or "hovering" (the word means like a mother bird over her eggs) over the waters of the deep, with lots of stuff already in place.

Like I said, I may not be right, but I am applying what I know with what the scriptures actually say. *shrug*

What would you say God did on the fourth day if he did not make the Sun, Moon, and stars on that day?

Did he rest for two days?

 

[Cyan]

Let's make up a hypothetical person then, just for discussion's sake. Last week, this person believed the days referred to in the bible were literally 24 hours long. This person very obviously had faith in this idea. Now, this week he changed his mind and decided the "days" in the bible are not literal days and creation proceeded over the course of some extended period. He no longer has faith that these days were 24 hours. This is not a debatable statement, it is literally true.

The point being you cannot maintain faith AND make changes to your faith based belief structure. In order to consider evidence and modify what you have faith in you must abandon that faith and pick it up again.

Typically people don't micromanage faith this way. That is, you don't usually hear someone explicitly state that they have faith in John 12:24 or whatever. Or that they have faith that a day in the Bible is 24 hours long. Rather they have faith in God, essentially meaning faith in the existence and general goodness of a deity, and that said deity has approximately the characteristics described in the Bible. Or possibly some might say they have faith in the Bible, meaning they believe that the Bible is the word of God as described above and is essentially true throughout.

If someone changes their mind about some specific feature of their religion, it doesn't make sense to say they've lost faith--their faith is not in individual features, but in the religion as a whole. That's part of what makes it so unshakeable for most people. Individual features can accrete and fall off without their losing faith in the whole thing.

 

[Opiate]

Typically people don't micromanage faith this way. That is, you don't usually hear someone explicitly state that they have faith in John 12:24 or whatever. Or that they have faith that a day in the Bible is 24 hours long. Rather they have faith in God, essentially meaning faith in the existence and general goodness of a deity, and that said deity has approximately the characteristics described in the Bible. Or possibly some might say they have faith in the Bible, meaning they believe that the Bible is the word of God as described above and is essentially true throughout.

If someone changes their mind about some specific feature of their religion, it doesn't make sense to say they've lost faith--their faith is not in individual features, but in the religion as a whole. That's part of what makes it so unshakeable for most people. Individual features can accrete and fall off without their losing faith in the whole thing.

I agree, but would point out that this requires a necessary vagueness of thought, a lack of precision and specificity which allow for such fudging of ideology to occur.

This isn't actually a religion-specific feature. Vague, nebulous beliefs are often immune to scrutiny and criticism because they can simply mold to the needs of the situation. For example, bogus medications which "promote natural healing" can avoid scrutiny because they can define "promote natural healing" in a nearly infinite number of ways.

 

[Dune1975]

Idiots overreacting mostly...

But I think a huge part the inability of people to question why they believe in god and what god means to them to them. And I don't mean asking does he exist but instead a deep inflection on morality and why they might need their god to play a role.

As I said I'm an atheist so I'm coming at this from the outside but it seems most people don't want to or can't question things and simply just nod and agree with the outdated dogma. They don't see the need to think about the bigger picture or aren't educated enough to do so

I think the bigger issue is that there really and truly is no point to believing in evolution for the majority of people, since it has no bearing on their personal lives, so no need to circumvent instilled beliefs over something that holds no signification to them. Its important to point out that contrary to popular beliefs, scientific literacy in the US is actually quite high, only European nation that is actually higher is Sweden. So it seems the issue real issue is our pragmatic nature, we are well versed in scientific knowledge that actually has a direct impact on us, the rest not so much.

 

[zethren]

Also, it is not generally accepted that Genesis literally accounts for 7 literal days of creation.

Translations and historical context, as well as original intended audience, must be taken into account.

Not to mention we measure a day by hours, by how long it takes the earth to rotate. If the sun didn't exist for the first few "days", how then could we describe those first few "days" as days? Were they longer than 24 hours? Were they shorter?

The creation story is an elaborate poem with actual mathematical complexity if you dig deep enough. Its pretty interesting.

 

[Cyan]

I agree, but would point out that this requires a necessary vagueness of thought, a lack of precision and specificity which allow for such fudging of ideology to occur.

Yes. I've noticed that many times people who have moved to atheism from religion tend to be those who have thought about their religion and its collective ideas and beliefs and how they tie together in a deep and specific way.

 

[Dune1975]

Also, it is not generally accepted that Genesis literally accounts for 7 literal days of creation.

Translations and historical context, as well as original intended audience, must be taken into account.

Not to mention we measure a day by hours, by how long it takes the earth to rotate. If the sun didn't exist for the first few "days", how then could we describe those first few "days" as days? Were they longer than 24 hours? Were they shorter?

The creation story is an elaborate poem with actual mathematical complexity if you dig deep enough. Its pretty interesting.

Its also two very different accounts smashed together, but few ever point that out.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

You miss understand what I said. I said that religion built up its audience off of having the answers of where we came from and where we are going. But CURRENTLY your everyday American born into a Christian house hold does not have to ponder where we came from on a regular basis. It's not a question people go out of their way to answer religously. They worry about who they will marry, where they will live, how they will eat but not where did life come from.

Now people who do actively want to know where we came from go into some form of Science. And no, Science is not so successful for humans because some branches attempt to study where we came from. Science is successful because it attempts to BETTER our lives with tangable knowledge and products that help us. Early medicine and such were not necessarily attempts at explaining where we came from. Just trying to understand the world currently as it is.

Christians do have to think about where they come from and what they believe. Christians, I would think, have to wonder if what they are believing is truth, especially when it comes to our origins. Many believe. Many don't and focus on other aspects of the religion or it very often becomes the catalyst for becoming atheist.

Secondly I thought it was implied that wasnt the only reason religion is successful (just most likely why it was created) and of course, answering our origin isn't the only reason science is successful. I didn't say this comment about science in a bubble. It can't stand without what you wrote. There's context and the context is

Now the truth is people in general don't really have to ponder where they came from. How humans, plants and animals were formed

I disagree, and argue that [a cetain section of] science has been very successful for humans [by somewhat answering millions of people's questions about our origin. i.e. evolution]

I think at the core I just disagree with your assessment that people don't think about where they come from and where they're going. You can have bills, get married and worry about the here and now, but humans aren't single minded. People constantly think about life and death. That's the human experience.

Actually, this line of argument doesn't entirely work either. My criticism doesn't simply depend on the plants dying without a sun. Genesis seems to clearly state that the sun existed after plants.We can date both and land plants are far younger.

Well then say that. Don't talk about plants not being able to survive without the sun. Seems to me you just moved on to a more reasonable argument after your other one didn't fare so well.

Also, it is not generally accepted that Genesis literally accounts for 7 literal days of creation.

Translations and historical context, as well as original intended audience, must be taken into account.

Not to mention we measure a day by hours, by how long it takes the earth to rotate. If the sun didn't exist for the first few "days", how then could we describe those first few "days" as days? Were they longer than 24 hours? Were they shorter?

The creation story is an elaborate poem with actual mathematical complexity if you dig deep enough. Its pretty interesting.

Ok, I'm curious.

 

[KHarvey16]

I agree, but would point out that this requires a necessary vagueness of thought, a lack of precision and specificity which allow for such fudging of ideology to occur.

This isn't actually a religion-specific feature. Vague, nebulous beliefs are often immune to scrutiny and criticism because they can simply mold to the needs of the situation. For example, bogus medications which "promote natural healing" can avoid scrutiny because they can define "promote natural healing" in a nearly infinite number of ways.

This is precisely the issue.

And I would even argue that changing a facet of the collective still requires you to lose faith. If you have faith in a religion and then change that religion by modifying anything about it you've left that original version behind. If you maintained your faith you would never modify your beliefs because you can't by definition. It's the padlock on the gate, so if you want to get in and replace something on the other side you need to undo the lock first.

 

[Pein]

best thing on GAF that I've seen in ages.

 

[CornBurrito]

Well then say that. Don't talk about plants not being able to survive without the sun. Seems to me you just moved on to a more reasonable argument after your other one didn't fare so well.

My original statement was how do you interpret Genesis stating the sun was made after the plants. I simply chose to use the "plants can't survive without sun" angle. The ridiculousness of the concept of land plants being older than the sun doesn't change just because I chose the wrong angle.

 

[zethren]

Ok, I'm curious.

I'm currently at work and can't gather sufficient resources for you right now, but I'll try to remember to do so tonight if you'd like.


Essentially it deals with cross references and basically things adding up to 3 constantly (many things). 3 being a very very important biblical number.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

This is precisely the issue.

And I would even argue that changing a facet of the collective still requires you to lose faith. If you have faith in a religion and then change that religion by modifying anything about it you've left that original version behind. If you maintained your faith you would never modify your beliefs because you can't by definition. It's the padlock on the gate, so if you want to get in and replace something on the other side you need to undo the lock first.

The problem that you face is much of the Bible is interpretation. So changing your interpretation does not mean you lose faith. Ironically you could compare it to trust in science. You don't discard science when someone has interpreted the data incorrectly and new information replaces the old. You don't discard science because once upon a time scientists doing a scientific study told us something wrong. Like cyan said its the whole where value (or in religions case faith) is place and not individual pieces.

My original statement was how do you interpret Genesis stating the sun was made after the plants. I simply chose to use the "plants can't survive without sun" angle. The ridiculousness of the concept of land plants being older than the sun doesn't change just because I chose the wrong angle.

OK

 

[KHarvey16]

The problem that you face is much of the Bible is interpretation. So changing your interpretation does not mean you lose faith. Ironically you could compare it to your belief in the science. You don't discard science when someone has interpreted the data incorrectly and new information replaces the old. You don't discard science because once upon a time scientists doing a scientific study told us something wrong. Like cyan said its the whole where value (or in religions case faith) is place and not individual pieces.

In science you discard old ideas. In religion you also discard old ideas but this means losing faith in those ideas you discard.

Do you have faith in that religious interpretation? The answer must be yes. Therefore changing that interpretation means losing faith in it and replacing it with something else.

 

[akira28]

well you know, with numbers and words you can do just about anything.

 

[Lothar]

Also, it is not generally accepted that Genesis literally accounts for 7 literal days of creation.

Translations and historical context, as well as original intended audience, must be taken into account.

Not to mention we measure a day by hours, by how long it takes the earth to rotate. If the sun didn't exist for the first few "days", how then could we describe those first few "days" as days? Were they longer than 24 hours? Were they shorter?

The creation story is an elaborate poem with actual mathematical complexity if you dig deep enough. Its pretty interesting.

If any religious people believe that Genesis was just a fictional story and not meant to be perceived as a real account, why wouldn't they believe that of the whole bible? What's the difference? Jesus rising from the dead like a zombie is just as fantastical as anything that happened in Genesis.

Also if it's not meant to be taken as a real account, then why have all the long genologies?

 

[CornBurrito]

I'm currently at work and can't gather sufficient resources for you right now, but I'll try to remember to do so tonight if you'd like.


Essentially it deals with cross references and basically things adding up to 3 constantly (many things). 3 being a very very important biblical number.

3 happens to be an extremely important number in a great number of works from many different cultures.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfThree

If any religious people believe that Genesis was just a fictional story and not meant to be perceived as a real account, why wouldn't they believe that of the whole bible? What's the difference? Jesus rising from the dead like a zombie is just as fantastical as anything that happened in Genesis.

Also if it's not meant to be taken as a real account, then why have all the long genologies?

I think I've had this conversation with zethren before and basically got "well some stuff is obviously real and others obviously allegory" spiel. Though I don't recall getting his (I'm sure - rigorous) methodology used to determine which is what.