Science and faith.

[Neodavid]

Yeah, I'm familiar with it, oddly from a Star Trek next generation episode. I looked it up and got interested in it. The data I came up with dated the tablets to 2100 BC.

It's really a moot point really, isn't it? The data just isn't good enough to come to decent conclusions.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It comes to us from Ancient Sumeria, and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script. It is about the adventures of the historical King of Uruk (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Que?

I did look it up, though, and the hebe jebes are older than I had thought.

 

[CyniQ]

Alrighty, so you don't defend it's premise or contents?

Why toss it out there?

Glad to see that you two are playing nice...

This particular comment seemed to me to be intended to demean and offend. Why should he defend it anyway? Didn't you already acknowledge the validity of the arguement when you said, "I know of no one who imagines creation was performed by a natural being. The concept of a creator necessitates the humility to accept the possibility that something is out there far beyond our comprehension", etc???

It seems to me that you are, in effect, saying that the arguement is valid when presented in that light. You just don't accept the premise that the arguement is based on.

I don't mean to stir up something that has already been resolved between the two of you. Just thought I'd throw in another opinion. Like I'd stay out of it anyway.

 

[Weatherlite]

Been lurking and finally figured I'd ask a question.

Someone said, "I know of no one who imagines creation was performed by a natural being." Does this mean that those who believe in creation believe that it was performed by an "unnatural" being? If so, then that would mean that the being was MADE by something else. Ok, cool. So, a lower god created by a greater god. Kinda makes sense. BUT, who created the greater god? Is he/she too unnatural?

If this is wrong and you are just saying that the god has always been there then isn't he/she a natural being? Where did the god come from?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[CyniQ]

Been lurking and finally figured I'd ask a question.

Someone said, "I know of no one who imagines creation was performed by a natural being." Does this mean that those who believe in creation believe that it was performed by an "unnatural" being? If so, then that would mean that the being was MADE by something else. Ok, cool. So, a lower god created by a greater god. Kinda makes sense. BUT, who created the greater god? Is he/she too unnatural?

If this is wrong and you are just saying that the god has always been there then isn't he/she a natural being? Where did the god come from?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

"Natural" as opposed to "supernatural". If we were created by a "natural" being then it doesn't have to be a "God". If it's a "supernatural" being. Then no matter how you slice it. We're talking about God.

Chicken came first. Who would sit on the egg?

 

[Neodavid]

A straw man argument is often valid, but my point was that it WAS only a straw man argument as no one I know of says the creator would be a natural being.

For those who don't know, a straw man argument is someone making up an argument, and then knock it down. The implication is they knocked something down that was important, but in fact it was only a fake.

Therefore it is invalid, while the argument itself is valid within it's own context. But it applies to nothing real.

On Grizz's "putting it out there", I only asked because I wanted to know why he did it. I was sincere and meant nothing demeaning.

Glad to see that you two are playing nice...

This particular comment seemed to me to be intended to demean and offend. Why should he defend it anyway? Didn't you already acknowledge the validity of the arguement when you said, "I know of no one who imagines creation was performed by a natural being. The concept of a creator necessitates the humility to accept the possibility that something is out there far beyond our comprehension", etc???

It seems to me that you are, in effect, saying that the arguement is valid when presented in that light. You just don't accept the premise that the arguement is based on.

I don't mean to stir up something that has already been resolved between the two of you. Just thought I'd throw in another opinion. Like I'd stay out of it anyway.

 

[Neodavid]

The evolutionist would say the egg came first, for the first 'chicken' would have to be a mutation from something else. The creationist would say the chicken came first.

"Natural" as opposed to "supernatural". If we were created by a "natural" being then it doesn't have to be a "God". If it's a "supernatural" being. Then no matter how you slice it. We're talking about God.

Chicken came first. Who would sit on the egg?

 

[Neodavid]

Supernatural as in something too much for the natural mind to comprehend. We can't grasp the concept of something always being there, of infinity, yet according to scripture, that is exactly how it is.

Likewise with almost any religion, the idea of an eternal God is common.

There are some things that require a lot of humility and faith to accept as possible. I've certainly never come close to comprehending it.

However to be fair, this is a common thread in evolution also, as it proposes (generall models) which say matter has either always existed (where did it come from?), or that it magically appeared from the big bang (what went bang, and where did THAT come from).

Every model I've heard has the same built in problem, you can always go back and say something had to always exist. But where did it come from...

Been lurking and finally figured I'd ask a question.

Someone said, "I know of no one who imagines creation was performed by a natural being." Does this mean that those who believe in creation believe that it was performed by an "unnatural" being? If so, then that would mean that the being was MADE by something else. Ok, cool. So, a lower god created by a greater god. Kinda makes sense. BUT, who created the greater god? Is he/she too unnatural?

If this is wrong and you are just saying that the god has always been there then isn't he/she a natural being? Where did the god come from?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[Grizzly]

Why would I put it out there? I don't know, maybe because the thread topic deals with the introduction of "intelligent design" into the classroom. No one YOU know argues a natural creator. That's because all of your friends are religionists. However, those who wish to give some scientific credence to "intelligent design" argue that which was argued in the article I posted. Thus, the article and its conclusions are quite valid. Particularly in a discussion regarding the introduction of the intelligent desing theory to science classrooms.

 

[cpeil2]

. . .not a mendelian genetic construct . . .

Sounds almost Lysenkoist. Do I understand you to question the science of inheritance?

 

[Neodavid]

Support it by giving the name of someone who argues this point.

I know of no intelligent human being who would bother.

Why would I put it out there? I don't know, maybe because the thread topic deals with the introduction of "intelligent design" into the classroom. No one YOU know argues a natural creator. That's because all of your friends are religionists. However, those who wish to give some scientific credence to "intelligent design" argue that which was argued in the article I posted. Thus, the article and its conclusions are quite valid. Particularly in a discussion regarding the introduction of the intelligent desing theory to science classrooms.

 

[Neodavid]

?

What sounds Lysenkoist? What did I say that in any way supports Michurianism or Lamarck?

Methinks thou art trolling perhaps?

The answer to your questionable question is no.

Sounds almost Lysenkoist. Do I understand you to question the science of inheritance?

 

[Grizzly]

First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationiststhe so-called Young Earthers and scientific creationistsproponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noahs flood. (Indeed, they shun the label creationism altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groupsand although I.D. plainly maintains that life was createdit is generally silent about the identity of the creator.

The movements main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any naturalor, more precisely, by any mindlessprocess. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

Sounds a whole lot like the point in the article posted. Furthermore, simple logic and necessity dictate that the "straw man" is used by those wishing to introduce intelligent design into classrooms. To say, "we propose that we teach that a god created everything, but we won't say which god" is an immediate disqualification. Thus, the text with which you take issue with is the obvious conclusion. It's the ONLY way to get ID into the classroom.

 

[Grizzly]

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion promoted by a movement denominated by the same name, that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be.

And here's a name for you. " ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference"[1] lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options, however Dembski states explicitly elsewhere that the designer can only be the Christian God"

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design"]Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:BwcOmega911a.jpg" class="image"><img alt="BwcOmega911a.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/BwcOmega911a.jpg/150px-BwcOmega911a.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/33/BwcOmega911a.jpg/150px-BwcOmega911a.jpg[/ame]

 

[Neodavid]

More fun with Griz

Okay, let's do this. Since I can't take you seriously, we can have fun.

Still waiting for a name of someone who claims a natural being is the designer.

Save the self serving mental masturbation for someone else (smile).

No one cares how smart you think you are. I just asked for a name.

So far, nada.

And I quote "however Dembski states explicitly elsewhere that the designer can only be the Christian God"

Quoting Homer, not of the Ilead variety, "Doh!"

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion promoted by a movement denominated by the same name, that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be.

And here's a name for you. " ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference"[1] lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options, however Dembski states explicitly elsewhere that the designer can only be the Christian God"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

 

[Grizzly]

No, that is what he added as his own personal bent on it. To begin with, he had to tow the party line and say either a god or aliens. He then put his own personal opinion behind it.

 

[cpeil2]

?

What sounds Lysenkoist? What did I say that in any way supports Michurianism or Lamarck?

Methinks thou art trolling perhaps?

The answer to your questionable question is no.

No. " . . .not a Mendelian genetic construct . . ." was such an interesting turn of phrase that I wanted to check it out.

 

[goldstone_77]

I find it far easier to believe that all life on this planet originated from a single cell. Than it is to believe in some religion. Why do people think it is so hard to believe in evolution? We are selves come from 2 haploid cells the form in to a single cell. When sperm fertilizes an egg. From that one cell, DNA produces the person staring at this post. So its not hard for me to believe that life came about in that way. As for the man in the moon I am skeptical? No one commented on the duck-billed platypus? Or is it just Gods idea of a joke? You can lead a horse to water, but the still want to believe in words in a book written thousands of years ago by men.

The duck-billed platypus (Ornithorhynchus Anatinus) lives in rivers on the eastern side of Australia.
The duck-billed platypus lays eggs and suckles its young.
The duck-billed platypus lives in burrows and finds food in the rivers using electrical impulses.
The male duck-billed platypus has a poisonous spur on his hind legs.
The duck-billed platypus grows to about 50cm and can live for up to 12 years in captivity.
This site has photographs, drawings, poems, stories, facts, references, links to other sites, and a variety of other information about the duck-billed platypus

http://www.platypus.org.uk/

I would put up a link for sexual reproduction, but I would think that would be common knowledge .. . . .

 

[goldstone_77]

A chicken would come first the egg would be the result of evolution.

The evolutionist would say the egg came first, for the first 'chicken' would have to be a mutation from something else. The creationist would say the chicken came first.

 

[Bob Smith]

A chicken would come first the egg would be the result of evolution.

Again, you fail to answer my very basic question.

 

[goldstone_77]

Found this and thought is was interesting and pertained to the subject matter. Wow, a lot of people put words into the Bible. Wow, it wasn't translated till, 1382 A.D., by John Wycliffe. And wasn't printed till, 1454 A.D. And the oldest ALMOST COMPLETE manuscript is kept in the Vatican in Rome. Didn't Catholic church at one time, put a price on forgiveness? Didn't Pardoners sells Pardons and Indulgences to sinners by the authority of the Pope? Which is harder to believe in..... WoW, how could someone even ask that knowing this information...

Fast Facts on the Bible

The following list is not designed to discuss doctrine, or provide in-depth teaching. It is merely a resource center for factual information on the Bible. Many of these questions have been addressed in various locations throughout our website; however, as many people do not have the time to comb through the entire website to find the answers they are looking for, we have compiled the following list. Please submit further questions (of this sort) to BibleQuestions@bible.com We will not be able to answer you directly, but will continue to develop this site, as we receive additional questions about the Bible. Don't forget to read our teaching on Bible History, for a more in-depth study.



1. How many books are in the Bible?

The Bible contains 66 books, divided among the Old and New Testaments.



2. How many books are in the Old Testament?

There are 39 books in the Old Testament.



3. How many books are in the New Testament?

There are 27 books in the New Testament.



4. What does "testament" mean?

Testament means "covenant" or "contract."



5. Who wrote the Bible?

The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40 different authors from all walks of life: shepherds, farmers, tent-makers, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers and kings. Despite these differences in occupation and the span of years it took to write it, the Bible is an extremely cohesive and unified book.



6. Which single author contributed the most books to the Old Testament?

Moses. He wrote the first five books of the Bible, referred to as the Pentateuch; the foundation of the Bible.



7. Which single author contributed the most books to the New Testament?

The Apostle Paul, who wrote 14 books (over half) of the New Testament.



8. When was the Bible written?

It was written over a period of some 1,500 years, from around 1450 B.C. (the time of Moses) to about 100 A.D. (following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ).



9. What is the oldest book in the Old Testament?

Many scholars agree that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written by an unknown Israelite about 1500 B.C. Others hold that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) are the oldest books in the Bible, written between 1446 and 1406 B.C.



10. What is the youngest book in the Old Testament?

The book of Malachi, written about 400 B.C.



11. What is the oldest book of the New Testament?

Probably the book of James, written as early as A.D. 45.



12. What is the youngest book in the New Testament?

The Book of Revelation is the youngest book of the New Testament, written about 95 A.D.



13. What languages was the Bible written in?

The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.



14. When was the Bible canonized?

The entire New Testament as we know it today, was canonized before the year 375 A.D. The Old Testament had previously been canonized long before the advent of Christ.



15. What does "canon" mean?

"Canon" is derived front the Greek word "Kanon," signifying a measuring rod. Thus, to have the Bible "canonized" meant that it had been measured by the standard or test of divine inspiration and authority. It became the collection of books or writings accepted by the apostles and leadership of the early Christian church as a basis for Christian belief. It is the standard by which all Christians throughout the ages live and worship.



16. When was the first translation of the Bible made into English?

1382 A.D., by John Wycliffe.



17. When was the Bible printed?

The Bible was printed in 1454 A.D. by Johannes Gutenberg who invented the "type mold" for the printing press. It was the first book ever printed.



18. What is the oldest almost-complete manuscript of the Bible now in existence?

The Codex Vaticanus, which dates from the first half of the fourth Century. It is located in the library of the Vatican in Rome. There are older fragments of the Bible that are still preserved however-- the oldest being a tiny scrap of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt, dating back to the beginning of the second century. (It is currently in the Rayland's Library in Manchester, England).



19. What is the longest book in the Bible?

The book of Psalms.



20. What is the shortest book in the Bible?

2 John.



21. What is the longest chapter in the Bible?

Psalm 119



22. What is the shortest chapter in the Bible?

Psalm 117



23. What is the longest verse in the Bible?

Esther 8:9



24. What is the shortest verse in the Bible?

John 11:35



25. Which book in the Bible does not mention the word "God?"

The book of Esther.



26. Who was the oldest man that ever lived?

Methuselah who lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27).



27. Who were the two men in the Bible who never died but were caught up to heaven?

Enoch, who walked with God and was no more (Genesis 5:22-24).

Elijah, who was caught up by a whirlwind into heaven (II Kings 2:11).



28. Who does the Bible say was the meekest man in the Bible (not including Jesus)?

Moses (Numbers 12:3).



29. How many languages has the Bible been translated into?

The Holy Bible has been translated into 2,018 languages, with countless more partial translations, and audio translations (for unwritten languages). (This is an enormous amount of translations. In comparison, Shakespeare, considered by many to be the master writer of the English language, has only been translated into 50 languages.)



30. Is the Bible still the best-selling book in the world?

Yes, indeed!

http://www.bible.com/answers/afacts.html