Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

No, you didn't. I did.

However, you did explain the argument about what is meant by "firmament" as the sky being described in "all kinds of colorful ways."

Not exactly. His reference was to Genesis 7:11 where it says that "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened"

That means it rained really hard but deco wanted to fucus on his assertion that firmament must necessarily mean solid and the windows must necessarily be literal "windows. And since the sky isn't solid and has no windows that the whole thing never happened.

I am simply putting forth the not-so-far-reaching argument that most things in the bible are described in "all kinds of colorful ways." If you apply the "colorful ways" argument to entire stories rather than individual words, we will be much closer in our viewpoints than you think.

I'm not sure my "colorful ways" argument was meant to be what you're taking it as. It was my way of saying that I think he was nit-picking and being silly about it. If you told me that "it rained cats and dogs", I would assume that it rained hard. I would not concluding that the whole thing must be a fabrication because we all know that it never rains cats and dogs.

 

[gangrel441]

Not exactly. His reference was to Genesis 7:11 where it says that "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened"

That means it rained really hard but deco wanted to fucus on his assertion that firmament must necessarily mean solid and the windows must necessarily be literal "windows. And since the sky isn't solid and has no windows that the whole thing never happened.

You, on the other hand, are bending your literal interpretation only when the facts that can be argued against it are in your opinion irrefutable. There is no solid firmament, therefore they must have been using "colorful language" to describe that part, but the rest of the story actually happened as reported. Hmmm....

I'm not sure my "colorful ways" argument was meant to be what you're taking it as. It was my way of saying that I think he was nit-picking and being silly about it. If you told me that "it rained cats and dogs", I would assume that it rained hard. I would not concluding that the whole thing must be a fabrication because we all know that it never rains cats and dogs.

Cats and dogs, eh? I heard about a time when it rained locusts and frogs in Egypt. Was that coloful too? I'm getting a little confused here.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Born and raised Catholic here. Spent 5 years in the Catholic Seminary system. Walked away from the whole deal for my own reasons...

That said, you are incorrect. The official Catholic teaching is that the stories in the bible are Truth, but are not necessarily Fact. The Bible is to be interpreted contextually, not literally. This is straight out of every theology class I took as a seminarian. Therefore, the Catholic church may teach the story that the flood covered the whole world, but they do not attempt to say that the facts of this story actually happened, only that the lessons to be learned from it are Truth.

Of course, it's all BS anyways, but that's just my take on it.

Interesting. I've read quit a few "Catholic" articles and papers and that isn't the impression I got.

Since we were discussing the flood, would you say that this article is representative of Catholic teaching? http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4737

The same article can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ The home page of that site contains the statement "The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. "

Yet, either you in your statement "Therefore, the Catholic church may teach the story that the flood covered the whole world, but they do not attempt to say that the facts of this story actually happened, only that the lessons to be learned from it are Truth." or they seem to misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic chrch.

Clarification?

 

[MikeFerrara]

You, on the other hand, are bending your literal interpretation only when the facts that can be argued against it are in your opinion irrefutable. There is no solid firmament, therefore they must have been using "colorful language" to describe that part, but the rest of the story actually happened as reported. Hmmm....

I am doing no such thing. I think I've stated my position pretty clearly regardless of how you try to twist it. In this cas, simply, that if you wish to refer to the sky when talking to people who call it a "firmament", then you had better call it a firmament or they won't know what you're talking about...arguments about whether the word actually meant a solid or an expanse aside.

Or of course, you could just point and grunt.

Cats and dogs, eh? I heard about a time when it rained locusts and frogs in Egypt. Was that coloful too?

Can you see the difference in contexts there? Content in context is everything.

I'm getting a little confused here.

I can see that you are. While I'm at work I'll give some thought as to how we can help you get un-confused.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You, on the other hand, are bending your literal interpretation only when the facts that can be argued against it are in your opinion irrefutable...

One more quick comment here...you seem very certain of what "my literal interpretation" is. I have to think that your certainty is more a product of your own assumptions than it is a result of anything that I've written.

 

[deco_martini]

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.

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

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).

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

 

[nereas]

Again, I'll point out that not all "scholars" come to that conclusion. You can state it as fact all you want but the "evidence" doesn't support it.

Actually, I've read quite a bit on the subject...and even used google. LOL

DecoMartini likes to falsely accuse others, so the best remedy is simply the mute function here, Mike. Otherwise you are wasting your time and the bandwidth.

 

[nereas]

No, I'd not self-describe as an existentialist, I'm a zoologist. I know that sounds funny, but it's the truth. I don't really spend much time on the whichness of why, it really doesn't much matter to me. I'm here, in the here and now, and when I'm gone (and before I arrived) I'm not (wasn't). That's that. I live for a strong sense of family and community, not individualism and I view most religion as rather repulsive mythology and most mythology are rather interesting literature.

I rely on those external things that may be relied upon, e.g., that stand up to empirical analysis or that may reasonable be inferred from such analysis, that is to say understood without having to spread the entrails of any animal or group of people for confirmation. But, I do try and stay inside my data set as much as possible. I'm a scientist who uses empirical methods to understand the world around him, I am not an empiricist philosopher.

What little I can stretch myself to actually believe draws rather heavily on Venkmanism ... "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Yes, very self reliant, just as I thought, and also quite practical as well.

Science, as invented by the ancient Greeks, and then improved during the modern Age of Enlightenment, is focused on tangible observations, from which it analogizes to analytical rules.

I imagine if you and I sat around the campfire on The Big Island roasting kabobs and marshmallows, we would mostly talk about things related to scuba diving, the creatures in the sea, the stars and galexies in the sky, the weather patterns, our wives, and the latest in scuba technology, like the Megalodon.

It would not make a lot of sense to discuss with you where everything in the universe came from, since these are not scientific observations, only ideas, some being scientific ideas, others not.

If there was a big bang, then I would suspect there was an Ubermench who directed it. You obviously would not.

 

[Soggy]

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

 

[Thalassamania]

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.