Creation vs. Evolution

[nereas]

I have no real need for a "being" to direct it. Sentience is really nothing more that complexity approaching the infinite. The universe is, with all its organization and ins and outs rather complex. If it makes you feel better to reduce the universe's scale and majesty to something that is easier to grasp, say a god or a ubermench or some tyrannical papa in the sky, that's your loss.

Rather than couch it in terms of gain or loss, meaning self-reliance or humility, I prefer to think of it more in terms of likelihood. To me it seems more likely than not that an Ubermench directed it all, due in part to the complexity, and also to the expanse, and finally to all the crazy prophets running around proclaiming their visitation visions.

And then you must also remember and consider history's miracles.

Because if there were no Ubermench, then the Hebrew language would have been exterminated by the ancient Egyptians 3,500 years ago.

And also, without an Ubermench, the American Navy would never have won the sea fight of the Coral Sea. And then we would all be speaking either Japanese or German today.

An Ubermench (or Ubermenchen) explains all that quite nicely.

 

[Thalassamania]

Rather than couch it in terms of gain or loss, meaning self-reliance or humility, I prefer to think of it more in terms of likelihood. To me it seems more likely than not that an Ubermench directed it all, due in part to the complexity, and also to the expanse, and finally to all the crazy prophets running around proclaiming their visitation visions. An Ubermench (or Ubermenchen) explain all that quite nicely.

I guess Occam's razor would indicate to me that the simplest answer, one that bypasses all theology, satisfies all my needs. But I do see Theology as a loss, it is an attempt to reduce the wonder of the universe to a scale that some as-yet half evolved apes can grock ... that's lèse majesté (or hubris if you prefer).

...

And also, without an Ubermench, the American Navy would never have won the sea fight of the Coral Sea. And then we would all be speaking either Japanese or German today.

An Ubermench (or Ubermenchen) explains all that quite nicely.

So does superior code breaking and communications intelligence. You don't need a god, or even chance, to explain the Battle of the Coral Sea (which incidentally we lost, but it helped us win decisively at Midway by keeping the carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku out of the later fight).

 

[sheck33]

Rather than couch it in terms of gain or loss, meaning self-reliance or humility, I prefer to think of it more in terms of likelihood. To me it seems more likely than not that an Ubermench directed it all, due in part to the complexity, and also to the expanse, and finally to all the crazy prophets running around proclaiming their visitation visions.

And then you must also remember and consider history's miracles.

Because if there were no Ubermench, then the Hebrew language would have been exterminated by the ancient Egyptians 3,500 years ago.

And also, without an Ubermench, the American Navy would never have won the sea fight of the Coral Sea. And then we would all be speaking either Japanese or German today.

An Ubermench (or Ubermenchen) explains all that quite nicely.

'God of the gaps', you can't comprehend it so some uber being 'must' have been responsible. An 'ubermensch' doesnt explain anything.

 

[Spencermm]

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

I almost cracked a rib!!!
Good one Soggy!
Spencer

 

[MikeFerrara]

There are no scholarly opinions that Moses wrote the Torah since scholarly opinions wind up in scholarly papers that get peer reviewed. A thesis that Moses wrote the Torah would not withstand peer review. Hence, those opinions after being dismissed for lack of any evidence would just be opinions and not scholarly ones.

Peer reviewed by whos peers? I've read some of the nonsense that I think you're refering to (though I haven't been able to get you to come out and say exactly what and where) and that's just what it is...nonsense.

I suppose you think the Jesus seminar was scholarly too? LOL

Moses writing the Torah is a religious legend like 6000 day creation.

Fine, support your case. For several thousand years Jewish and Christian belief (and Muslim?) has been that moses was the author. Per your own rules of "debunking" the burden of proof is on you. Sorry, some voice or style changes, don't cut it. Do you have anything more substantial?

When I was a young fundamentalist, I was an old earth creationist. I was a believer and nowhere in the Bible did it say the earth was 6000 years old. Only through inference, hints, and mental gymastics is that the case.

I think trying to use scripture to determine the age of the earth is probably a mis-use and not at all what God intended. Likewise, I don't think it was intended for use as a science text.

Likewise, nowhere in the Torah does it claim Moses is the author. It would be quite hard to do since he would have had to to write down his own death. (the usual copout out for that is, well duh, he obviously had someone else write that part).

I don't know about anybody else here but I've written many documents of dozens of different types that I didn't sign. In some cases there might be other documents that give reason to think that I was the author. In other cases, you would have to have access to someone familiar enough with company history to know that I was the engineer assigned to the project...and that wouldn't do you any good unless you believed what they told you.

In the case of the Torah, there is not only evidence in the torah but many other places througout scripture. We have both scripture and tradition. The skeptics have some "voice changes" LOL. Naturally, the athiest, skeptic or athiest skeptic scholar is under no obligation to accept any of it.

There is hard enough stuff to believe in the Bible without making up things it doesn't even say that have to be supported.

You may have hit on something here. What support for authorship would you want and why? Would it make any difference to you if there was a dated note at the end of each chapter that said who the author was?

My money says it wouldn't make any difference at all. If the skeptic "scholars" don't believe Jesus existed, they certainly don't believe Moses existed and they would just say it was forged. LOL

 

[deco_martini]

Fine, support your case. For several thousand years Jewish and Christian belief (and Muslim?) has been that moses was the author.

You don't understand how this works. We don't believe things because that is what we are taught to believe. We believe things because we are offered convincing evidence of it.

Show me where in the Bible it says Moses wrote the Torah. Show me any scholarly study on who wrote the old testament that has been peer reviewed that supports a single-author theory.

For your consumption, the mainstream theory is that much of the Torah was passed down through oral tradition, committed to stone or scroll by various peoples, and compiled into the versions you see today. This is based on archaelogical study, study of writing styles, study of ancient texts themselves, and is the opinion of the catholic church even.

I would rather go with what the various ways to study ancient text agree on than what you were told by your dad because his dad told him.

If you have any evidence other than hearsay that Moses wrote the Torah, that somehow contradicts the mountains of evidence otherwise, I would be glad to look at it as it would contradict everything that has been learned about the Torah.

 

[MikeFerrara]

But I do see Theology as a loss, it is an attempt to reduce the wonder of the universe to a scale that some as-yet half evolved apes can grock ... that's lèse majesté (or hubris if you prefer).

I disagree. That sure isn't what it's about for me.

I'm not sure you're putting this in a perspective that is realistic for most people. My need for an explanation of the wonders of the universe or evolution or the origins of life are nothing more than idle curiosities to take up space in idle conversation and it doesn't bother me in the least to just say "I don't know". Absolutely nothing is at stake. The vast majority of my time and energies are just taken up by other things. It wouldn't have been much use to me when I was an engineer and now, as a farrier, I'd be much more interested in any new info you might have regarding the prevention or treatment of equine laminitis or any one of a hundred other things. Theology, of course, is little help in that regard.

No, theology deals more with spiritual matters. My concern with those spiritual matters has very little to do with the natural world aside from the fact that there is much in the natural world to be thankful for.

 

[Thalassamania]

Peer reviewed by whos peers?

Usually that would be by a panel of top workers in the field who are asked to fulfill that function by a journal considering publication of an article.

Fine, support your case. For several thousand years Jewish and Christian belief (and Muslim?) has been that moses was the author. Per your own rules of "debunking" the burden of proof is on you. Sorry, some voice or style changes, don't cut it. Do you have anything more substantial?

Mike, you guys are quibbling about the word belief. Belief is not knowledge and not fact, no matter how long the belief has been held and no matter how many groups or people hold it. It is still just belief. To transmogrify belief into fact there are very specific academic tests and procedures that are universally agreed to. If you remember our past discussion of the historical Jesus you will recall a very similar conversation. I don't happen to know the agreed upon test for authorship of an ancient document.

My money says it wouldn't make any difference at all. If the skeptic "scholars" don't believe Jesus existed, they certainly don't believe Moses existed and they would just say it was forged. LOL

You'd lose your money. Tests are objective, they don't involve belief, either for or against. The problem is that those who "believe" are not willing to change their beliefs in the face of more complete knowledge, or even soften their belief in the absence of evidence that supports their belief.

The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness. Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes, 1911

 

[deco_martini]

No, theology deals more with spiritual matters.

Then leave it at that. If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah. Then you either have to believe that God told him to lie about the Exodus (jewish tradition holds that the Torah was transcribed from God at Mt Sinai) or that Moses lied about it.

There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus. Period. Most Christians don't even realize the Red Sea is a mistranslation. The sea of reeds (proper translation) Moses claimed to cross wasn't even very deep. There have been no archaeological finds corroborating that 600,000 people wandered around in those regions for 40 years. There is no egyption army buried at the bottom of the sea of reeds (or even at the Red Sea and yes some fools who read mistranslations have looked there).

So if Moses wrote the Torah then he was a bit of a braggart to say least or a big liar at the worst. If God conveyed the Torah to Moses and Moses wrote it word for word, then God lied to Moses.

Wouldn't it be a much simpler explanation that the Torah is compiled from multiple sources from various groups and that it represents tribal stories and remembrances that shouldn't be read literally?

Or maybe the field of archeology is full of atheists who won't admit they've found evidence of a mass migration of people out of Egypt that the Egyptians themselves forgot to record in their histories because they were embarassed or something.

If theology is about spriritual matters, then the lessons taught by the stories are what is important and not their historical accuracy.

 

[Sordello]

If theology is about spriritual matters, then the lessons taught by the stories are what is important and not their historical accuracy.