So long as you exclude translation issues, language evolution, and poetic language.DJjaffacake said:
Poll: Do you support evolution?
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
And an entire school of monks in the Cluny tradition that interpreted the Bible in an explicitely mystical fashion, rather than as a history text.BrassButtons said:
[auote=Jarimir]In this thread I see a lot of nerds DYING to have a knock-down drag-out fight with creationists[/quote]
That may be how you see it. However, that's not how I see it. My study of evolutionary theory via the fossil record is my career, and my job. It is literally how I put food on my family's table. It's somethingg I've dedicated my life to, something I've worked for literally since my first concious memories (Styracosaurus is the first dinosaur I remember seeing, by the way). Now some pathetic wasts of protoplasm that don't even have the common decency to learn WHAT THE BLOODY WORDS MEAN are attempting to tell me how to do my job, if not flat-out outlaw it. Imagine how you'd feel if someone walked into your job with no training, no experience, who couldn't even understand what you were saying about it, but still demanded that you do things their way. I imagine you'd be mildly upset. But apparently I'm a nerd looking to pick a fight.
But wait, it gets worse! The Wedge Document clearly outlines the plans that some Creationist groups have for using this as the opening gambit of turning the USA into a theocracy. THis is no conspiracy theory--the Wedge Document is there for everyone to read. This is their plan. As someone who believes firmly in the freedom of religion, this is terrifying. Anyone who values freedom--and ESPECIALLY those who follow religions based on the Bible--should be fighting these people tooth and nail.
But go ahead and mock those of us who take this issue seriously.
As for the "We have to deal with pressing issues" bit, it merely shows a lack of understanding of paleontology. The past is the key to the future. We know (and are continuously learning more about) the impacts of global warming on the biosphere during ecological purturbations. To paleontologists, this isn't a terribly difficult question--at least, not in theory; the difficulty arises in the specifics. Look at the late Eocene, the end of the Permian, the middle of the Late Cretaceous, and other times when the world was hot. What lived? What died? What generaliztions can we make? Using that data, we can predict what will happen in a warmer world. We can predict what will happen with other environmental issues as well--habitat fragmentation, altered nutrition in humans, species invasions, these are all questions that fall firmly into my field. We've answered the middle one already (sucks for the early adopters, but over time we adapt). The last one's a bit trickier because of the aforementioned ecological purturbations, but it's still not impossible (the closing of the Isthmus of Panama provides a fantastic natural experiment). Simply put, to say that we should avoid studying evolution until we solve all the pressing problems is to deny the very data that is necessary to solve them.
I believe in both a god and science. Some god probably could have just created the universe and the laws of the universe and then shit just happened according to those laws.
Sounds like you don't understand the concept of omnipotence.DJjaffacake said:
OP: I support evolution, and am as Catholic as any good Irishman.
As far as I'm concerned it's the best explanation given the facts. That's good enough for me. I will say that on this forum... I predict 90-95% will pick evolution on the poll. We're not really a good representative of everyone everywhere.
I'm went to a good quality public university so don't turn this into a class thing. Unless you go to a completely shitty school, it's easy to at least acquire the basics of an education. The part where you might have had bad experiences with some professors doesn't detract from the overall points I made either.Jarimir said:
You're just making excuses.
Is there any actual evidence that any of those are in effect?BrassButtons said:
A day is something that only exists on planets. It's the period of their rotation. If an individual existed outside of space and time, he or she would have no day at all. Therefore there's no reason to assume that when the Bible says a day, it means anything other than an Earth day.zombiejoe said:
A) See above.Hafrael said:
B) Omnipotence is a self-contradictory concept anyway.
All you've done is to provide a possible definition for a "day", and then assume that definition MUST be applicable to the phrase in the bible. Since the Bible contains many phrases of multiple interpretations, and is rife with symbolism and metaphor, you know no such thing. I can write tons of different meanings for "Days".DJjaffacake said:
"The days past as weeks since she left me" - Do I literally mean that the length of time she left me can be measured in weeks?
"I don't go there until the day the sun rises in the west" - Am I literally referring to a 24 hour period in which the planet reverses its rotation?
"The day has gone by so fast!" - Has the planet's rotation sped up?
The Hebrew word yom (יוֹםDJjaffacake said:
has the most common meaning of "day" (as in Yom Kippur - Day of Atonement) but also has the older, more obscure secondary meaning of "a large unspecified amount of time". There's of course lots of arguing between the confirmations on the context in which yom is used in Genesis. In other instances in the Old Testament it is much clearly that it's the second meaning.There are many translation problems in the bible, not surprising for a book that has been translated and further translated through translations so many times. Take the famous "camel through a needle's eye" for example, where an early Greek translation of the original (or possibly a translation thereof) might have slipped and written kamilos (camel) instead of kamêlos (cable, rope).
It's not a 'possible definition' it's the definition. On Earth, a day is 24 hours. On other planets, a day is however long it takes for them to rotate once. Everywhere else, there is no such thing as a day. All the examples you gave are clearly not meant to be taken literally. If you were to say, "On Wednesday I did X," most people would assume you meant exactly what you said. And that's what the Bible says, that on a given day God did something.Murrdox said:
Thank you. That would certainly seem to provide a plausible reason why a day might not mean a day.Quaxar said:The Hebrew word yom (יוֹם
There are many translation problems in the bible, not surprising for a book that has been translated and further translated through translations so many times. Take the famous "camel through a needle's eye" for example, where an early Greek translation of the original (or possibly a translation thereof) might have slipped and written kamilos (camel) instead of kamêlos (cable, rope).
And therein is the second part of your problem. You're assuming the language in that section of the Bible is meant to be taken literally. The Bible is filled with symbols, double-meanings, and allegory. Since you can't go right up and ask the person who wrote the Bible what they intended, it's often quite ambiguous as to what parts of the Bible are meant to be literal and which are figurative. The entire story of Revelations can be taken symbolically, as can the entire creation story.DJjaffacake said:
Even the Garden of Eden has been interpreted differently over the years. In contemporary Biblical times it was sometimes literally a place by the Tigris river. In modern times its interpretation has been changed to more of a metaphysical paradise. Do you literally think a "flaming sword" guards the entrance to Eden? Interesting that a sword would be placed to guard a place when no wars had taken place yet, so there was no need to invent swords. Makes more sense that the sword is a symbol of something.
So for you to jump to the conclusion that we have to use a literal meaning of "Day" as in "24 hours" is erroneous. "Day" in the context of an allegorical or symbolic work could mean a literal day, or it could be just a symbol for the passage of a period of time. You have no way of knowing.
Except Earth didn't exist through most of the shit God was doing...DJjaffacake said:
Also, how is omnipotence self-contradictory?
Lets look a the Bible in the context of when it was written, the people at the time knew nothing of the universe beyond our solar system and next to nothing of our planets history and how it works. They had no concept of day other than the Earth's rotation day. Today people attempt to make the Bible's reference's more rational with what we know now i.e. Days, in order to make it fit in with stuff that disproves it.Murrdox said:
We now know exactly what a day is and that our 24 hour day is only applicable on our planet, you can't take that knowledge and retroactively apply it to an outdated worldview. We also now know that the Earths rotation is slowing down, about 450 million years ago the Earth's day was 3 hours shorter, which further disproves the Bible's notion of an Earth based day being a concept for a deity as the length of our day is changing based solely on our planet's motion. Yes the Bible is a bunch of metaphorical stories and in parts is not literal, but it's also an attempt to understand the world and give meaning to our existence based on the information available at the time.
Language evolution certainly is. Slang is a perfect example of it--you get both short-term variations in linguistic patterns, as well as long-term trends due to cultural isolation. Those long-term trends start out the same as the short-term variations, but stick.DJjaffacake said:
Look at the English language. Twenty years ago the term "blog" didn't exist, or was extremely rare at any rate. Fifty years ago no one outside the military and academia had heard of the internet. Language has changed in accordance with its environment (human culture).
There also was a Vatican publication recently updating Latin, an example of a top-down evolution of language.
As far as the Creation story in the Bible goes, I'm in full agreement with the Medieval monks: If you're trying to learn history via the Bible, you're using the book wrong. Even if the authors got the history of some of it right, that was so beside the point as to be irrelevant--it's like critiquing a Renaissance painting because that brick was in the wrong place. The point of the Bible is the message it contains (for the record, I disagree with much of it). The Creationists are wrong to interpret Genesis literally, and the atheists are wrong to demand all Catholics/Christians do so.
No, it's just one of the definitions. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/day]DJjaffacake said:
The common example is if you have omnipotence can you make a rock so heavy that you can't lift it? I mean you have the power to do anything right? I can do this down at my local query why can't an Omnipotent being do this? And if he can't do that he is not Omnipotent.Hafrael said: