Separate names with a comma.
Watch the show and join the conversation, Guest!
Discussion in 'SHH Community Forum' started by Thread Manager, Aug 14, 2012.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]381031[/split]
A theory is NOT a guess. Theories are supported by a large body of empirical data. Theories are established by observation or experiment. Theories contain facts. Also, laws are not above theories.
This link explains theories and laws http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
This link summarizes how the word theory is used in science http://www.notjustatheory.com
Here are a number of posts in this thread that cover what the word theory means.
Apparently, only 40% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. Creation museums receive a great amount of funding and politicians constantly try to push legislation that would put creationism on equal footing with evolution in classrooms.
I'm interested to see what the dynamic here is. I'd like to see why people believe or don't believe, what they believe instead, and the reasoning behind it.
Do you have any interesting stories on discussions you've had relating to the topic, perhaps with teachers or people in class or whatever?
Post your thoughts!
Which part, and are you referring to all the versions that were edited, retranslated, condensed by Constantine, etc.? Or a specific modern version?
I will never understand why people think that just because we dont know why or how something works right now that god must have done it. 500 years ago thy thought the tides came in and the planets moved because of god. Now we know why these things happen. Just because we dont know something now doesnt mean we should slap a god stamp on it and forget about it.
Can't guess accurately...whether it's the Hebrew bible or what have you. But the question remains...what does when it was written have to do with it having scientific evidence against evolution?
It's old, it must be true.
I am just trying to ease you into my proof.
It makes it easier for me to explain, and for you to understand.....So please answer the question.
By "Pentateuch i meant "Five Books of Moses".
I think it;s a fair guess tat it was written before people knew anything about the world not being flat, or the Earth not being the center of the universe, or before biology, or chemistry, or physics, or astronomy, or just about anything else that we can consider a modern science.
Mythology, on the other hand, predates the bible by quite a bit.
You mean your hypohtesis. Just provide a link, I'll be happy to read it.
The 'god of the gaps' as default is still holding on.
So, Shemtov. I'm curious. When we find a habitable alien planet, or when they come here... how's that going to affect your view?
Not only that, but it was like a big game of telephone. Stories passed down verbally from generation to generation were finally written down and who knows how much they changed from each telling. Not to mention all that is lost/altered in translation.
Just spill or link.
I think it has to do with our fundamental nature. To a dog, thunder is a scary noise. To a caveman it's an angry deity (Thor, Zeus, etc). To an educated man, it can be explained by lightning, air pressure and temperature.
Not only that but many well known things in the bible are retellings of various other mythologies. For instance Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection shares many common elements with the birth, death, and resurrection of Horus.
@KalMart There seems to be mo major consensus, with some of the latest theories having the origins of the Pentateuch being put together in the 5th century BCE.
And none of it having to do with real science at any juncture. So you cannot point to it as an argument for sciences that it was never conscious of to begin with. It at best offers interpretations of natural phenomena framed in ways to, rather poetically, accentuate its ideology.
And again, regardless of when it was written...does it in any way offer specific, sound scientific explanations for the origin and progressive development of life? A fully developed man 'Formed from sand' does not qualify.
I'm Jewish. Leave Jesus out of this.
We were discussing this before it was insisted by the now banned OP that the whole convo was OT.
We Stopped when I asked a question on a similiar theory:
What did the compilers tell the people to explain where this ultra-important book had been? Remember it claims to have been written centuries earlier.
Imagine for a second you're a Jew living in Babylon/Persia around 500 BCE. Somebody comes out with a new book called the Bible.; It claims to have been written in parts for the past 700 years. A part of it claims to have been written around 1200 BCE. (This is directly in the Bible "Moses finished writing the words of this Pentateuch in a scroll to the very end" Deut 31:24)
Would you accept it?
And if he claimed it was lost, wouldn't the fact that the book was lost and rediscovered have been written in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which is the story of the period of Jewish History around 500 BCE?
I will respond here since your last response to me was in the other thread. Hope you don't mind (cause we really don't have a choice...).
To what you said in this statement, it is true that many religious people have said things through the past and we have come to a different understanding now, but the same is true with evolution which has gone through changes in belief and/or understanding. A 3 part video link hopefully will help as it mentions just that. I'll include it at the end of this post.
As for saying that if you don't understand something now one should put a God stamp on it.... sure creationists may if the Bible supports the current scientific understanding, but that doesn't mean you have to if you are an evolutionist. Just like I need more proof of evolution to believe in it, that through vast amounts of time, man came to be from much older life from the sea, it is understandable from my POV that you need more proof, too, to put a God stamp on it. In other words, just because science may not have an understaing of something (yet) doesn't automatically mean a God stamp. But just as you challenge me to look at evolution more, I would return thesame to you to see if it leads to that God stamp.
Here are the three videos, I thought they were interesting:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JV6K1az6NM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwt8edtHUA
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtgJHBHFR98
If their is no other logical explanation for the Bible other then it is the True word of God (which is my theory), then a sound scientific explanation doesn't matter.
Please point out how it scientifically argues evolution, otherwise it is off-topic.
Well, that seems odd if you're trying to say the Bible is truth. So, just some of the Bible is accurate? Do I get to pick and choose which parts I believe to be true?
Because if it can be proven that God gave the Bible, then evolution must not be true, because the Bible says it's not.
When I say bible I mean the Jewish bible: