The Genesis Enigma - why the bible is scientifically accurate.

[senojekips]

Not me, I'm a "card carrying" atheist. No half measures here.

I take full responsibility for all of my own shortcomings, I don't need a mythical "man in the sky" to take the blame for me or absolve me of my "sins".

The buck stops right here!

The scientifically accurate part of "the bobble" starts with, "It's a book", and there, the accuracy ends.

 

[MontyB]

Not me, I'm an atheist. No half measures here.

I take full responsibility for all of my own shortcomings, I don't need a mythical "man in the sky" to take the blame for me or absolve me of my "sins".

The buck stops right here!

I am agnostic bordering atheism, essentially I find it almost impossible to believe that a divine "being" exists that has ultimate control and yet chooses not to exercise it and if this being does exist then because it chooses not to help when it has the power to do so it can not be benevolent.

However I know a number of people that see god as a set of rules to live life by and not an entity (sort of a mankind as a whole=god) which I can sort of accept no matter how wishy washy it appears, over all I agree that I am master of my own destiny.

 

[senojekips]

However I know a number of people that see god as a set of rules to live life by and not an entity (sort of a mankind as a whole=god) which I can sort of accept no matter how wishy washy it appears, over all I agree that I am master of my own destiny.

I could live with that. I have a very clear cut set of rules by which I live, and this is one of the reasons that I get quite grumpy when "christians" try to take the high moral ground, as most of them in my experience have few rules of morality which they will not break when it suits them.

As for "the bobble", I feel that many of todays flakey TV sitcoms have a far more credible storyline.

 

[A Can of Man]

No, I don't believe God exists in the way that many imagine, but I do believe that the set of rules and ideals are good and they are attributed to God. These values are not universal and I think they are good, so I might as well give some credit to the entity to which they are attributed to.
I don't think it's something we really can understand, at least not at this point.

Main messages: Love, forgiveness.

The rest are details. I bet if Jesus could come back to read the Bible he'd go "What the f...."
It's basically a relationship between you and the words really. What other people go about doing is pretty irrelevant.

 

[MontyB]

No, I don't believe God exists in the way that many imagine, but I do believe that the set of rules and ideals are good and they are attributed to God. These values are not universal and I think they are good, so I might as well give some credit to the entity to which they are attributed to.
I don't think it's something we really can understand, at least not at this point.

Main messages: Love, forgiveness.

The rest are details. I bet if Jesus could come back to read the Bible he'd go "What the f...."
It's basically a relationship between you and the words really. What other people go about doing is pretty irrelevant.

But that is part of the problem, people seem to love attributing the "commandments" to Christianity and "God" however these are rules that society has had ever since we "the human race" became communal.

I think this was something that Rattler was eluding to in an earlier post but many of the rules and regulations that appear as commandments were rules and regulations that Persians, Babylonians, Greeks, Egyptians and Romans all lived under thousands of years before Christianity appeared on the scene.

Besides if Jesus turned up tomorrow, 5.56 would call him a hippie liberal for long hair and and preaching peace so I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[A Can of Man]

Which is why I don't think Christianity should aggressively consider itself the only one.
These rules and regulations have been around for some time but I'm not all that sure that the primary message of love and forgiveness was the centerpiece of the belief.
In Christianity, it is certainly supposed to be.
Plus, the God worshipped in Christianity is not unique to Christianity anyways. Same God that the Jews and Muslims worship. So who's to say it doesn't go back further than Judaism?

Either way, once the most important part of the teachings are violated, there really isn't any point anymore. But people seem to forget about the important parts and focus on all the small details that could have come from anywhere and from anyone.

 

[major liability]

Pfft. The Ancient Greeks realized that the entire universe can be expressed in numbers, now THAT is a discovery I respect.

"More fanciful writers immediately start to theorise wildly: that those who built the pyramids, or Stonehenge, must have been guided by super-intelligent aliens, that sort of thing. Andrew Parker, a scientist and proud of it, has no time for such twaddle."


I'm laughing out loud. It couldn't be intelligent aliens, but it's TOTALLY possible that it was actually an invisible omnipotent old man in the sky. What the hell are they smoking?


This is a case of someone seeing what they want to see. There are many, many coincidences throughout history that might seem significant in some way if you have too much free time.

 

[Del Boy]

Where it all starts is the question that holds the key. Science and religion; whence?

More interesting as, wherever it started, it appears to rumbling to a finish about now - our contribution I mean.:smile:

 

[senojekips]

I think the argument was pretty much stillborn. It never had a real chance of ever going anywhere sensible.

 

[Del Boy]

Over 5000 years recorded so far.:smile: and counting. Longest search ever.

 

[senojekips]

Yep, firmly headed in the same direction as the searches for free energy and perpetual motion.

 

[Zastava-Arms]

Just now people are finding out the scriptures are true???? Can't people see the wonders God has created on a daily basis??...It dosen't take a genius to figure out, that the bible is true, ..lol.
And while the bible is mysterious, it's also and most definitely an accurate book...I believe 100% in the scriptures, for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ...sigh..

Oh dear.

Whenever im at the library and notice the bible misplaced, I promptly tell one of the librarians that it belongs in the "Fiction" section. Using their common sense, they return all of the bibles to their correct places.

 

[rattler]

I rally have to remain out of this topic... Just this said, preparing for incoming... : :hide:

Rattler

 

[Padre]

here's my 2 shekels worth



Just read the book. Basically he argues that one of the two accounts of Creation in the Book of Genesis (that's right, have a look, there are two accounts) follows a pattern that can be described as evolutionary and reconciled to Darwin's theory of evolution. He further dwells on how science and faith can live happily together, the former explaining the mechanics and nuts & bolts, the latter explaining the Engineer behind it all. He is very close to Pope John Paul II's personal theology of Creation in that regard, and he obviously finds and argues atheism is an unstaisfactory state of opinion about the origin and meaning of life.

Well, Biblical fundamentalists (or whatever label they may prefer) will see this as a sell out of the Bible and of God's inerrant, infalible and literally and historically true Word.

Atheists and probably many agnostics will see it as an attempt to prove God's existence using both Bible and Science as harmonious exhibits A and B, but most will dismiss Dr Parker's case as nonsense. Religious faith to them will always be a mix of superstition, fabel, fiction, with a dose of human power games, and nothing more.

Catholics, unless they fall into the Biblical fundamentalist group, and any other Christians/Theists who do not fall into that group will probably find Dr Parker's book interesting and an apology for their own view of God creating creation through evolution.

I found the book interesting but felt he was drawing a long bow on some claims and I think more scholars (scientists, theologians and Scripture scholars of various stripes) than not would not rate this work very highly.

The topic of wanting/trying/hoping to prove that the Torah/Bible/OT is both historically accurate and either literally true or either full of evolutionary processes in the Creation of the earth and universe - and thus defended by evolution as well as demonstrating evolution, is not a topic I'm interested in but I'd recommend the book to anyone who was, even if just to include in one' bibliography on the subject. At the very least it has a good codification of various opinions, references and primary sources on the topic (for and against).

For the average Joe the Atheist in the street he'll scoff at such stuff, and for the average Joe the Believer in the street he'll just want to know that the ending of the book reassures him/us that there is a God and here is one more (new) reason to believe.

 

[rattler]

well said, thanks!

Rattler

 

[A Can of Man]

Thanks for the insight Padre.
I can see what the author might have been trying to achieve but peacemaking is a very difficult thing to do.

 

[senojekips]

Just read the book. Basically he argues that one of the two accounts of Creation in the Book of Genesis (that's right, have a look, there are two accounts) follows a pattern that can be described as evolutionary and reconciled to Darwin's theory of evolution....

Not a bad review Padre, sounds good to me,... for what that's worth.:mrgreen:

 

[MontyB]

Not a bad review Padre, sounds good to me,... for what that's worth.:mrgreen:

The problem is that the logic used to reach his conclusions is not robust, to argue that a given book contains some factual occurrences therefore the whole book is fact thus my argument is also fact is erroneous logic.

I don't care what he wants to say or what concepts he wants to marry if he doesn't use a robust method of linking the two he is wasting his time.

 

[rattler]

The problem is that the logic used to reach his conclusions is not robust, to argue that a given book contains some factual occurrences therefore the whole book is fact thus my argument is also fact is erroneous logic.

I don't care what he wants to say or what concepts he wants to marry if he doesn't use a robust method of linking the two he is wasting his time.

Indeed: Circulus in demonstrando (circular logic fallacy).

I always get nervous if people ignore (in discourse or debate) the golden rules.

The only way to get out of a dilemma is to leave the arena.

Rattler

APPENDIX: The golden rules *everyone* debating on a forum should at least understand conceptually so that he spots them when coming across and can avoid or use them consciously: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html .

Too long to quote, so you must read it up for yourself... R.

 

[MontyB]

Indeed: Circulus in demonstrando (circular logic fallacy).

I always get nervous if people ignore (in discourse or debate) the golden rules.

The only way to get out of a dilemma is to leave the arena.

Rattler

APPENDIX: The golden rules *everyone* debating on a forum should at least understand conceptually so that he spots them when coming across and can avoid or use them consciously: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html .

Too long to quote, so you must read it up for yourself... R.

It is certainly a very frustrating thing to combat and you see it a lot in religion, politics's and the firearms debates, you are probably right about avoiding arguments based around circular logic.