[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, this is not aimed at Christians in particular, but a feature of all major religions.

No, oppressive governance. There's a difference. The religion is not causal of suppressing idealogy. In most cases it can be illustrated where man acted in direct conflict with Scripture while claiming to act under its guise. Religion was merely a vehicle. The religion was used to manipulate the faithful masses by greedy human nature. Had this society been primarily Muslim, the Catholic attempts at suppression would've been in vane. This simply follows. (enter ideal here) It doesn't matter. Science itself can likewise be bastardized and permeate governance. It can persecute those of very specific ethnicity and creed. If it is a vehicle for a greedy human nature, it will be driven by greedy humans. The religion itself has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You can see it in Afghanistan today or in Europe a few hundred years ago. The conflict between church (!) and society (including monarchy) was when church wanted to influence public life, say, by appointing a King or enforcing the anthropocentric universe (vs. heliocentric).

Right and I believe it was a Catholic cleric by the name of Copernicus who founded the notion that would later come to a head under Galileo, another devout Christian. Their opposition? Mankind in power. Period.

And no, this did not begin with a `fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christian'.

Why not? It doesn't say anywhere in Scripture that the earth has to be the center of the universe right? Perspectives.

Similarly, you can turn to the Arab world. They were once leading in the development of mathematics and natural sciences, but a `restoration of old religious values' brought an end to this time of scientific prosperity. It was their opinion that some science is `blasphemous'. In pretty much the same way that the Catholic Church claimed it was ridiculous to think that the Earth is not the center of the universe (essentially, because humans like to be special, the center). Or that it is ridiculous to assume we have common ancestors with the great apes. In all of these cases, man's uneasiness with the implications of some ideas is supplemented by interpretations of religious texts.

That is not the case today. Today, evolution is taught unfettered throughout a country of 75+% self-proclaimed Christians. The attempts at suppressing the teaching of evolution have failed.

The open secret here is that humans have always interpreted scriptures the way they have wanted to.

Right, the way they wanted to. Not the way you wanted them to.

They have justified wars with it. They have justified blood shed. They have justified gay marriage and the abolition if gay marriage. It has always been adapted to the needs of the time, we constantly pick and choose. Of course one side would always argue that their interpretation is right and the other one is wrong.

Exactly. It may also be argued that under the guise of fitness, an ideal was given thrust by a man who believed there were inferior races and peoples, among them homosexuals; having nothing to do with religion, but of his ideal of science. In fact, the one entity to stand in staunch opposition to this tyrant was the Church (!) You of course know to whom I refer. Not really known for his religious zealotry.

Even if you adhere to the `literal' meaning, it is non-sense if the original authors did not mean for it to be interpreted literally. Essentially it's up to us to interpret each scripture. And yes, it has been `adjusted' to conform with scientific discoveries over time (rather, the official interpretation has been adapted).

By those who feel it is important to reconcile Scripture with science. It will continue to be "adjusted" by those who wish to continue doing so. Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection from the dead (while physically impossible by any scientifically empirical standard we have today) is the absolute core of Christianity as the atonement of man's sin by the sacrifice of a perfect being. Those who continue to modify Scripture to reconcile it with science have not clearly provided a demarcation for when it is acceptable to take it literally.

Worse, I happen to believe the challenges of the dogmatic faithful counter the challenges of the dogmatic unfaithful. There's nothing wrong with this. If it weren't for this science/religious divide, it'd be the color of your eyes, hair, skin, or whether you're an (R) or a (D), or any number of other differences. I've seen absolutely no evidence that society's problem is that it doesn't believe in evolution. Bigger fish and all that... I say oh well.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, oppressive governance. There's a difference. The religion is not causal of suppressing idealogy. In most cases it can be illustrated where man acted in direct conflict with Scripture while claiming to act under its guise. Religion was merely a vehicle. The religion was used to manipulate the faithful masses by greedy human nature. Had this society been primarily Muslim, the Catholic attempts at suppression would've been in vane. This simply follows. (enter ideal here) It doesn't matter. Science itself can likewise be bastardized and permeate governance. It can persecute those of very specific ethnicity and creed. If it is a vehicle for a greedy human nature, it will be driven by greedy humans. The religion itself has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Nope, these two cannot be separated. People can try, but you simply can't.
That religion was `merely a vehicle' of course plays a part in some cases, but it ultimately cannot be separated from religion itself. There is no way to separate genuinely good intentions (even if it's a `wrong interpretation') from bad intentions on this scale. Some people have really believed in what they were doing -- and their thinking is based on the idea that what they're doing is the right thing™.

Islamic terrorists genuinely believe they blow themselves up for the greater good. Same with Catholic terrorists in Ireland. Take your pick. Moderate people will say they abuse religion for their political goals, and they'd be right, but in the end this is what humans do with religion. And because we interpret things the way we want to, this is an inherent danger of and to religion -- unless there is a reasonably strong separation between church/religion and state.

Historically speaking, science itself has a much better track record than religion. Science can be abused in the same way religion can, but morals have their roots in our religious heritage, so it is usually religion that is abused, not science.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right and I believe it was a Catholic cleric by the name of Copernicus who founded the notion that would later come to a head under Galileo, another devout Christian. Their opposition? Mankind in power. Period.

It was Copernicus who made that hypothesis, but it was Galileo who got into real trouble for promoting his idea.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why not? It doesn't say anywhere in Scripture that the earth has to be the center of the universe right? Perspectives.

The Scripture starts with the creation of human beings, it's inherently anthropocentric. It doesn't explicitly say `the Earth is the center of the universe', but this is the interpretation humans wanted to see! It's always the same thing, we prefer to think we somehow are special.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Exactly. It may also be argued that under the guise of fitness, an ideal was given thrust by a man who believed there were inferior races and peoples, among them homosexuals; having nothing to do with religion, but of his ideal of science. In fact, the one entity to stand in staunch opposition to this tyrant was the Church (!) You of course know to whom I refer. Not really known for his religious zealotry.

Most major religions I'm aware of condemn homosexuality. This belief is a left-over of religious beliefs and not of science. People tried to give it a pseudo-scientific justification, but make no mistake, prejudice towards homosexuality does not stem from science, but religion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By those who feel it is important to reconcile Scripture with science. ... Those who continue to modify Scripture to reconcile it with science have not clearly provided a demarcation for when it is acceptable to take it literally.

No, by anyone who lives for things (s)he believes in. Not just with science, but with social matters and anything else. It doesn't start or stop with scientific matters. Just think of capital punishment or so. If you were to follow the official dogma of the Catholic Church for instance, then you would have to oppose capital punishment. Yet many Catholics in America are for it. Why? Because they rationalize the Bible in a different way. In Europe, the Bible has been used to rationalize social programs. Orthodox Jewish settlers justify their settlements by Scripture, the list goes on and on.

So humans have reinterpreted their favorite Scripture, this interpretation has always changed and many times, science was not involved at all.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To simplify the question and for the benefit of those of us who might not remember the order exactly, can you list it please? Exactly which events do you want to find out are in which order?

Here is Genesis 1:

1In the(A) beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was(B) without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3And God said,(C) "Let there be light," and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6And God said,(D) "Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made[b] the expanse and(E) separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were(F) above the expanse. And it was so. 8And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9And God said,(G) "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11And God said,(H) "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for(I) signs and for(J) seasons,[f] and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16And God(K) made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to(L) rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." 21So(M) God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying,(N) "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said,(O) "Let us make man[h] in our image,(P) after our likeness. And(Q) let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
(R) male and female he created them.

28And God blessed them. And God said to them,(S) "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit.(T) You shall have them for food. 30And(U) to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31(V) And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Source: BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

So, using the method of radioactive decay-dating-method, and assuming that decay-rates are uniform in history, can one confirm or disprove the order of the things created in this account, and can 4.5 billion years be injected in the first five days?

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nope, these two cannot be separated. People can try, but you simply can't.

You're wrong. The two have been separated and yet, human nature will do what it does in spite of religion even if they claim to do it under the guise of religion.

That religion was `merely a vehicle' of course plays a part in some cases, but it ultimately cannot be separated from religion itself.

You're confusing correlative with causal which is an easy mistake because the foundation of a culture has always been religion. If you want to manipulate the masses, the most effective way was through their religion. This is not an indictment against religion, but of human nature.

There is no way to separate genuinely good intentions (even if it's a `wrong interpretation') from bad intentions on this scale. Some people have really believed in what they were doing -- and their thinking is based on the idea that what they're doing is the right thing™.

Someone can believe this regardless of their religion and often display it by actions in spite of the tenets of that faith. You give some examples below.

Islamic terrorists genuinely believe they blow themselves up for the greater good.

Yet the overwhelming majority of those practicing Islam do not blow themselves up. What does this tell you? There are mean, rotten people of all shapes, colors, creeds, and sizes and while they may find that religion has become an effective vehicle for manipulation, they act in spite of it.

Same with Catholic terrorists in Ireland. Take your pick. Moderate people will say they abuse religion for their political goals, and they'd be right, but in the end this is what humans do with religion.

What you're missing is that they won't do it exclusively with religion. Hence, (enter ideal here).

And because we interpret things the way we want to, this is an inherent danger of and to religion -- unless there is a reasonably strong separation between church/religion and state.

I find that even the concept of "separation of church and state" has varying interpretations with good intentions gone bad. Many regard it as suppression of church in state which of course is also not as it should be.

Historically speaking, science itself has a much better track record than religion. Science can be abused in the same way religion can, but morals have their roots in our religious heritage, so it is usually religion that is abused, not science.

First of all, this fails to account for the incredible progress of science in studying what was seen as the calculable nature of an orderly God over angering the many gods of nature by disrupting it. Secondly, you speak as if the consequences of these moralities has been mostly bad. Perspectives. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that religion has not been causal, but correlative having been used by those in power as anything would be used by those in power. For every one in corrupted leadership under the guise of religion, there were thousands of faithful practitioners carrying out their day to day with the utmost of their integrity and for the greater good.

It was Copernicus who made that hypothesis, but it was Galileo who got into real trouble for promoting his idea.

Galileo, who fashioned himself a true son of the Catholic Church who claimed that "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

The Scripture starts with the creation of human beings, it's inherently anthropocentric.

You're wrong. You're taking evidence from Scripture and filtering it through a presupposition. Worse, your logic doesn't follow. Man was created on the 6th day which puts him behind the sun, moon, stars and planets, vegetation, fish, birds, and cattle.

It doesn't explicitly say `the Earth is the center of the universe', but this is the interpretation humans wanted to see! It's always the same thing, we prefer to think we somehow are special.

It could be argued that this value for life had a profound impact among those cultures where it was not regarded as such say in Rome for example and became the "religion of slaves".

Most major religions I'm aware of condemn homosexuality.

Most cultures do... yes. If you include sodomy, almost all cultures.

This belief is a left-over of religious beliefs and not of science. People tried to give it a pseudo-scientific justification, but make no mistake, prejudice towards homosexuality does not stem from science, but religion.

Again, correlative not causal and science has been used to persecute homosexuality in that it was viewed as corrupting the perfect race. A race founded upon Hitler's interpretation of science. It is telling to view Einstein's own account of the Church at this time. He witnessed even the historically brutal media was silenced by Hitler's movement, only the Church stood in opposition.

No, by anyone who lives for things (s)he believes in. Not just with science, but with social matters and anything else. It doesn't start or stop with scientific matters. Just think of capital punishment or so. If you were to follow the official dogma of the Catholic Church for instance, then you would have to oppose capital punishment. Yet many Catholics in America are for it. Why? Because they rationalize the Bible in a different way.

Maybe they have elevated their own logic above that which they find in Scripture. Maybe they believe politically, the death penalty is necessary.

In Europe, the Bible has been used to rationalize social programs. Orthodox Jewish settlers justify their settlements by Scripture, the list goes on and on.

Again, correlative not causal. There is nothing to suggest human nature would act in any other way with any ideal at its disposal.

So humans have reinterpreted their favorite Scripture, this interpretation has always changed and many times, science was not involved at all.

Unfortunately, this does not address what we're talking about. Those that claim all you need to do to reconcile faith with science is change your faith have not provided a demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable change. Those who insist on changing the meaning of Scripture to fit scientific theory will have a Bible that never stops changing. This is audacious and naive of human nature. Interesting to me a culture that supposedly champions diversity seems to stop at this critical point almost every time.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Here is Genesis 1:


Source: BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

So, using the method of radioactive decay-dating-method, and assuming that decay-rates are uniform in history, can one confirm or disprove the order of the things created in this account, and can 4.5 billion years be injected in the first five days?

Taliesin

Lest not forget the second creation myth starting at genesis 2.4:

Originally Posted by KJV

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Lest not forget the second creation myth starting at genesis 2.4:

They are accounts of two separate events, one of which "was" (for the most part) and the other "is".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Here is Genesis 1:


Source: BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

So, using the method of radioactive decay-dating-method, and assuming that decay-rates are uniform in history, can one confirm or disprove the order of the things created in this account, and can 4.5 billion years be injected in the first five days?

Taliesin

Like what exactly? Just that water preceded land, which preceded stars, which preceded the sun and the moon, which preceded plants, which preceded animals, which preceded livestock animals, which preceded humans?

I think the fossil record would confirm that order of living things. Radiometric dating puts the earth at a younger age than optical methods would put either the stars or the sun (though I think the sun is pretty close in age to the earth, so that order might turn out to be true I guess; I don't know how they estimate the sun's age). For stars they use something about red-shift to determine how far away they are, and then the speed of light is assumed to be constant so they use that to estimate how long it must have taken that light to travel that distance, then they assume that if they can see a star then it must have existed at the time when the light we're seeing now left it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They are accounts of two separate events, one of which "was" (for the most part) and the other "is".

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They are accounts of two separate events, one of which "was" (for the most part) and the other "is".

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying there were two separate and sequential creation events of two separate Earths each with their own plants and animals as well as men? I don't think I've ever heard that particular interpretation before, and it would seem to contradict most mainstream Christian thought (specifically the uniqueness of creation), not that Christian thought, and certainly mainstream Christian thought, should be the guiding principle here...

However, I suppose the firmament of Heaven was created separating two bodies of water from each other:

God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water." So God made the firmament, and separated between the waters which were beneath the firmament and the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. God called the firmament: "Heaven." And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:6-8)

From that point on everything appears to be taking place in regards to the waters below Heaven, and no explicit mention that I see is made to the waters above Heaven. The waters above Heaven, so far as I can see (I'm looking at the text right now) don't appear to ever be mentioned again (at least not in the first three chapters of Genesis). So it seems possible that one creation account takes place below heaven and the other above, though it's not explicitly mentioned.

I suspect this isn't what you're referring to, but it's the only way I can see to fit your statement with the text. But even that doesn't take into account the 'one that was, one that is' part. That, to me, sounds like you're saying there was the first creation, it was destroyed, then there was the second creation.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Like what exactly? Just that water preceded land, which preceded stars, which preceded the sun and the moon, which preceded plants, which preceded animals, which preceded livestock animals, which preceded humans?

I think the fossil record would confirm that order of living things. Radiometric dating puts the earth at a younger age than optical methods would put either the stars or the sun (though I think the sun is pretty close in age to the earth, so that order might turn out to be true I guess; I don't know how they estimate the sun's age). For stars they use something about red-shift to determine how far away they are, and then the speed of light is assumed to be constant so they use that to estimate how long it must have taken that light to travel that distance, then they assume that if they can see a star then it must have existed at the time when the light we're seeing now left it.

So, the thing with the stars hangs on the reliability of the redshift-analysis for the determination of long distances. How reliable is that method and how does it work?

Taliesin

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

So, the thing with the stars hangs on the reliability of the redshift-analysis for the determination of long distances. How reliable is that method and how does it work?

Taliesin

Red-shift analysis, so far as I know, doesn't tell us much about how far away a star it (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It merely tells us how quickly it's moving away (or towards, but that's not really happening) from us. As far as that goes it's very reliable and very simple: red-shift refers to the doppler shift the occurs in light's wavelength as the source moves away from you, it's counterpart is blue-shift which occurs the the light source is moving towards you. It's the same phenomenon that leads to a car horn or siren seeming to increase in pitch as it gets closer to you then decrease again as it passes you. The pitch of the sound is just the wavelength of the sound waves, which is constant (well, for a given tone, anyway), but because the source of the sound (or light) is moving towards you each consecutive peak and trough in the sound (or light) wave is a little closer to you than the one that came before. The result is that you perceive a shorter wavelength than you otherwise would and therefore hear a higher pitched sound, or, if we're dealing with light, you see a shorter wavelength and therefore the color of the light is moved toward the ultra-violet end of the spectrum (blue-shifted). The opposite occurs when the source is moving away from you (as the stars are from us due to the ongoing expansion of the universe) leading to the perception of a longer wavelength and a lower pitch of sound or redder shade of color (red-shifting).

If we know the actual wavelength of the light and/or sound being emitted we can therefore calculate the speed and direction (relative to us) in which is is moving based on the red/blue-shift.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Lest not forget the second creation myth starting at genesis 2.4:

There seems to be a contradiction to Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, man got created before the animals. Strange. Now what is the right account?

Interesting is also that according to Genesis 2, the garden Eden was located somewhere in the middle-east, probably in what we know today as Iraq.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Red-shift analysis, so far as I know, doesn't tell us much about how far away a star it (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). It merely tells us how quickly it's moving away (or towards, but that's not really happening) from us. .

Right. To measure the distance astronomers use other methods: direct geometrical calculation for stars that are only 400 lightyears away, and the indirect comparison of apparent and real brightness of a star when further away.

Taliesin

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

There seems to be a contradiction to Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, man got created before the animals. Strange. Now what is the right account?

Yeah, I've always been interested in that as well. If nothing else, it's proof that the text can't possibly be taken literally.

Interesting is also that according to Genesis 2, the garden Eden was located somewhere in the middle-east, probably in what we know today as Iraq.

Taliesin

Makes sense when you consider that the Middle-East is where Judaism arose. At the time, they didn't really know that there was much more to the Earth.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

God is helping lizards "Micro Evolve" I guess:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution?

That's all I want to know..

Taliesin

The young earth position isn't the only view evangelical inerrantists may hold. The framework view of Genesis 1 and 2 applies exegetical concerns so that Genesis 1 and 2 aren't a literal creation story but a theological creation story. Although not a goal, one of the results is that creation could be any age without violating sin and death entering before the fall. The view is involved and considered to be within orthodoxy in conservative evangelical circles.

A notable work is a comparison among the day age, 24 hour day and framework views in The Genesis Debate.

Lee Irons summarizes the framework view, writing,

The framework interpretation agrees with the 24-hour view that at the literal level Gen. 1 speaks of ordinary solar days. In fact it is even more consistently literal since it insists on this meaning even for the first three days. What sets the framework interpretation apart is its claim that the total picture of the creation week is figurative. The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week in which the divine craftsman goes about His creative toil for six days and finally rests from and in His completed work on the seventh. To insist on taking this picture literally is to miss the profound theological point - that the creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of God Himself in incorruptible glory.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed 

The young earth position isn't the only view evangelical inerrantists may hold. The framework view of Genesis 1 and 2 applies exegetical concerns so that Genesis 1 and 2 aren't a literal creation story but a theological creation story. Although not a goal, one of the results is that creation could be any age without violating sin and death entering before the fall. The view is involved and considered to be within orthodoxy in conservative evangelical circles.

A notable work is a comparison among the day age, 24 hour day and framework views in The Genesis Debate.

Lee Irons summarizes the framework view, writing,

The framework interpretation agrees with the 24-hour view that at the literal level Gen. 1 speaks of ordinary solar days. In fact it is even more consistently literal since it insists on this meaning even for the first three days. What sets the framework interpretation apart is its claim that the total picture of the creation week is figurative. The creation history is figuratively presented as an ordinary week in which the divine craftsman goes about His creative toil for six days and finally rests from and in His completed work on the seventh. To insist on taking this picture literally is to miss the profound theological point - that the creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of God Himself in incorruptible glory.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that there are christian priests/theologians/scholars that favour a completely figurative interpretation. How do these frameworkers explain the odd difference between Genesis 1 and 2, and even more importantly, how do they explain the christian view that before man was created there was no death and suffering in the universe, and last but not least, how do they explain the genealogy between Adam and Joseph, that spans merely a few thousand years, or do they also think of this all, including the Abraham/Lot/Noah-story as merely figurative?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

God is helping lizards "Micro Evolve" I guess:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Now if that doesn't show God's power, I don't know what is. May God be praised.

Taliesin

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Now if that doesn't show God's power, I don't know what is. May God be praised.

Taliesin

I'm not sure I see your reasoning.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I'm not sure I see your reasoning.

His reasoning is based on a different, but not uncommon perspective founded on a presupposition you may not accept. It may be difficult for you to understand his perspective because of your own presupposition.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

His reasoning is based on a different, but not uncommon perspective founded on a presupposition you may not accept. It may be difficult for you to understand his perspective because of your own presupposition.

Well, I'm a little confused because he's stating it in such a way that implies we should all be seeing it, regardless of presuppositions (Or am I reading into things?)

No need for the vagueness, ebuddy. If you're implying Taliesin's logic is based on a foundation that God causes/control's everything, that was my best guess. My difficulty with this logic (if I'm interpreting correctly) is that it seems to be to an extreme -- if I were him I could say the very same thing about a guy who died of a heart attack after eating too many steaks. Most religious people wouldn't go to that extreme, I believe.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Well, I'm a little confused because he's stating it in such a way that implies we should all be seeing it, regardless of presuppositions (Or am I reading into things?)

No need for the vagueness, ebuddy. If you're implying Taliesin's logic is based on a foundation that God causes/control's everything, that was my best guess. My difficulty with this logic (if I'm interpreting correctly) is that it seems to be to an extreme -- if I were him I could say the very same thing about a guy who died of a heart attack after eating too many steaks. Most religious people wouldn't go to that extreme, I believe.

Why should a lizard's ability to adapt to a vastly different environment within such a short span be regarded as unfortunate, like a guy dying of a heart attack from eating too many steaks? True, most religious people wouldn't go to that extreme, but here we are now discussing it.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why should a lizard's ability to adapt to a vastly different environment within such a short span be regarded as unfortunate, like a guy dying of a heart attack from eating too many steaks? True, most religious people wouldn't go to that extreme, but here we are now discussing it.

Neither is fortunate or unfortunate, just the result of God's order/will.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Neither is fortunate or unfortunate, just the result of God's order/will.

Unless of course this man was trying to off himself with steak, I'd most definitely consider the latter unfortunate. Even God would not have you eat this much meat.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unless of course this man was trying to off himself with steak, I'd most definitely consider the latter unfortunate. Even God would not have you eat this much meat.

That sounds like a debate for another thread.

I feel dirty having used so many emoticons in such a short period.

[OreoCookie]

I haven't figured out either what ebuddy means with `presuppositions' either, whether it's a set of philosophical beliefs (e. g. `the world makes sense' and `I believe in God') or something else. Plus, the way he put it, it sounds condescending.

So what exactly do you mean by `presuppositions,' ebuddy?

[Dakar the Fourth]

I read it as a "You're an athiest you wouldn't understand" kind of statement, but as I said, I didn't read Taliesin's comment as to be meant exclusively for believers.

[Big Mac]

Regarding the supposed discrepancies in creation between B'Reshit (Genesis) 1 and 2 (discussed on page 3), when it says no plant of the field was in the earth because Adam was not around to tend to them, the context informs us that it's referring to the Garden of Eden (the reference to "in the field" is one clue, and the fact that it refers to man is another that this plant life was specifically for Adam's benefit and would not be actualized until he was ready). Also, the animals that God forms for Adam to name were already formed. The verb formed is in past tense - God "had formed" them previously but brought them to Adam in the garden when he was ready to name them. Chapter 1 is an overview of creation; chapter 2 (or at least, from verse 4 on because the Christian chapter division cuts the end of chapter 1 off) is specific to humanity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I haven't figured out either what ebuddy means with `presuppositions' either, whether it's a set of philosophical beliefs (e. g. `the world makes sense' and `I believe in God') or something else. Plus, the way he put it, it sounds condescending.

So what exactly do you mean by `presuppositions,' ebuddy?

I'll give you an example. We've all been posting here long enough that you know me to be a Christian. You use this as the basis for assuming my use of the term "presupposition" in a discussion on reconciling faith with science, was condescending.

As explained in detail before, two people may view the same evidence and come to two different conclusions based on presupposition. Some may say; "God is amazing" and others may say; "nature is amazing".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I read it as a "You're an athiest you wouldn't understand" kind of statement, but as I said, I didn't read Taliesin's comment as to be meant exclusively for believers.

The only thing I could know about you is that you might be a Toronto Raptors fan. His reasoning seemed apparent to me. His presupposition seems to be that 'God did it' and new evidence of how God did it is telling to him. It appeared not to be telling to you.

I was merely using this "disconnect" between you and Taliesin to illustrate the presuppositions in action and why the attempt to reconcile the two often fail.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll give you an example. We've all been posting here long enough that you know me to be a Christian. You use this as the basis for assuming my use of the term "presupposition" in a discussion on reconciling faith with science, was condescending.

No, I'm not assuming anything now, I'm asking you what you mean by presupposition? Don't give me examples or dodge the question, just explain to me what you mean by that, please.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As explained in detail before, two people may view the same evidence and come to two different conclusions based on presupposition. Some may say; "God is amazing" and others may say; "nature is amazing".

You haven't explained what you mean by this. Nor does your example clear things up.
People say `nature is amazing' or `that landscape is breathtaking' even (or especially) if they believe God has created nature.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, I'm not assuming anything now, I'm asking you what you mean by presupposition? Don't give me examples or dodge the question, just explain to me what you mean by that, please.

I'm glad you're no longer assuming anything now. Progress.

You haven't explained what you mean by this. Nor does your example clear things up.
People say `nature is amazing' or `that landscape is breathtaking' even (or especially) if they believe God has created nature.

Another example would be the scientific evidence for common descent. One may employ a theological presupposition and view this as evidence of common design.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Regarding the supposed discrepancies in creation between B'Reshit (Genesis) 1 and 2 (discussed on page 3), when it says no plant of the field was in the earth because Adam was not around to tend to them, the context informs us that it's referring to the Garden of Eden (the reference to "in the field" is one clue, and the fact that it refers to man is another that this plant life was specifically for Adam's benefit and would not be actualized until he was ready). Also, the animals that God forms for Adam to name were already formed. The verb formed is in past tense - God "had formed" them previously but brought them to Adam in the garden when he was ready to name them. Chapter 1 is an overview of creation; chapter 2 (or at least, from verse 4 on because the Christian chapter division cuts the end of chapter 1 off) is specific to humanity.

Ah, this is an excellent clarification, thank you. Re-reading the passages I can see that it does make a lot of sense this way. For a more modern twist you could maybe even say that in chapter 1 God is creating the model definitions, while in chapter 2 God is creating instantiations of those models. As in: 'And God said, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness"...So God created Man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.' would be more along the lines of creating the idea of what Man is and how Man should be, then 'And Hashem God formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life; and man became a living being.' is God using the aforecreated idea of Man to create an actual Man out of the dust.

[Big Mac]

You're very welcome, nonhuman. The interpretation you suggest has basis in Jewish thought, too. Judaism teaches of the preexistence of the Torah - that it was God's first creation and that He used it as the blueprint for the rest of creation. Of course, that goes beyond what you are suggesting, but it's within the same theme.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Another example would be the scientific evidence for common descent. One may employ a theological presupposition and view this as evidence of common design.

What you describe are conclusions and not presuppositions. You can come to either conclusion if you use a `theological presupposition' (although I don't know exactly what this mean).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm glad you're no longer assuming anything now. Progress.

You're still dodging the question: what do you mean by presupposition?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What you describe are conclusions and not presuppositions. You can come to either conclusion if you use a `theological presupposition' (although I don't know exactly what this mean).

If one believes in a Creator, they may either view scientific evidence as evidence of a Creator or argue the evidence. If one does not believe in a Creator, they will not regard scientific evidence as evidence of a Creator and may use it to argue against the ideal of a Creator or "creation. Again, laypeople.

Science cannot regard "creators" because this foundation is not suitable for the scientific method. This indifference should not be regarded as evidence against a Creator as the scientific method can neither prove or disprove a deity. A thing (or elements thereof) cannot be both natural and supernatural.

You're still dodging the question: what do you mean by presupposition?

I mean presupposition by its definition. I guess I don't know how else to explain this more clearly to you. I'm not saying anything objectionable, but you insist on being argumentative.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think I'll just wait for Taliesin to weigh in here.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're very welcome, nonhuman. The interpretation you suggest has basis in Jewish thought, too. Judaism teaches of the preexistence of the Torah - that it was God's first creation and that He used it as the blueprint for the rest of creation. Of course, that goes beyond what you are suggesting, but it's within the same theme.

Interesting. The programming metaphor is not one that had occurred to me before, though in hindsight it seems fairly obvious. Is the pre-existing Torah considered to be more or less identical to the current text? If so, that would seem to raise some issues with my interpretation as you would then have God creating a blueprint from which He creates a blueprint, from which he creates Man (et al). However a quick Google search found me this:

Originally Posted by Rabbi Yossi Marcus

The Torah in its present manifestation—as we know it—is a “descended” version of the original. In its original form, the Torah does not discuss earthly reality, but rather only describes the spiritual realm. This is what the Midrash means when it tells us that the Torah “preceded” the creation of the world—even the concept of a world—by “2,000 years.”* Similarly, the Torah studied by the souls of the departed and the not-yet-born in the Garden of Eden does not address physical reality. The Torah we see is a dim reflection of that Torah, a translation of its sublimity in earthly terms.

I don't know if this is a mainstream view or what, but it suggests to me that the Torah used as a blueprint for the universe is not the same as our text in which case the 'model definitions' created in chapter 1 could actually be the creation of the Torah itself.

Actually, re-reading the text, I think my distinction here isn't quite accurate. It's not so much a distinction between chapters 1 and 2, as a distinction between the different verses in chapter 1. For example 1:6 ('God said, "Let there be a firmament..."') would be the creation of the relevant segment of the Torah, while 1:7 ('So God made the firmament...') would be the execution of that segment (model definition and instantiation using my CS metaphor).

It occurs to me that we're wandering way off track here... And actually, I don't think a single one of my contributions to this thread has been on topic at all. Fortunately I think I can bring this all back around to the original topic. Using the programming metaphor, I think we could easily equate the 'model definition' with the 'evolutionary history' of each created being, in this case Adam and Eve. In a lot of ways, treating God as a programmer and Creation as a program makes it very easy to reconcile the two ideas, all though it's hardly a new idea, it's really just a modernization of the watchmaker analogy. Creation therefore becomes the 'booting up' of the universe, and during the boot time Creation as we know it does not exist yet, the stage is merely being set for it to do so, the 'startup programs' are being run if you will. There not being any life yet from which to create new life through reproduction, all life on earth must be bootstrapped from nothing. What is this bootstrapping process other than evolution?

[Big Mac]

I'll have to read up on Rabbi Marcus's thoughts - I haven't heard the preexisting Torah described quite in those terms, but it definitely makes it easier to understand the concept if it's thought of that way. In a different realm of thought, there is an interesting lecture on Mayan prophecy on Google Video, which I personally don't think is all that factual but interesting nonetheless, and its thrust is very similar to what you're thinking of regarding stages of creation as preparation for higher levels of creation. I think the programming metaphors can make a lot of sense. I think a type of evolution derivative can be thought of within a Genesis framework (the text saying, for instance, that the earth brought forth creatures after God's declaration to create them) but that the theory of evolution itself is not amenable to creation because the theory explicitly denies an outside divine architect of the process.

But to digress, it's interesting that the introduction to chapter 2 says that these are generations of creation in the "yom" (that commonly means "day") God made earth and heaven, thereby implying that the "day" being spoken of there contains a lot more than 24 hours. Also, the commentators state the days of creation in chapter 1 are no longer than 24 hours but that, at the same time those days contain a lot more than their nominal length:

Originally Posted by aish.com

Nachmanides expands the statement. He says that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" -- all the ages and all the secrets of the world.
Age of the Universe

There are obviously deeper meanings within the text than what many devout Christians who merely see seven days of creation and call it at that would like to believe.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I'm not sure I see your reasoning.

I didn't mean it ironically if that is what you thought. For me the mere existence of a single atom is proof enough to believe in God and His might, most other people, even most religious people don't think so, they need something obvious, something out of the order, something fancy, a wonder that is not viewable everyday...

Even religious people (most of them anyway) don't look at the sky, the sun, clouds, rain, grass, air... and think: "Wow, what a boatload full of wonders God shows us every day, what mercy, what generosity... may He be praised." They take them for granted and don't think of them at all, at least not until these things come somehow out of order, like sun and rain causing a rainbow, or a very strong storm that threatens to take their house and lifes away...

It's similar with life. Life and death occurs in an every-day-cycle, so people grew accustomed to it and forget that all of it is part of God's miracles. They need something out of the order to remember God and this article seemed to be a good example of this...

I would like to also adress Bigmac's excellent arguments, but unfortunately I don't have enough time today, if God wills, I will reply tommorow.

Taliesin

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'll have to read up on Rabbi Marcus's thoughts - I haven't heard the preexisting Torah described quite in those terms, but it definitely makes it easier to understand the concept if it's thought of that way. In a different realm of thought, there is an interesting lecture on Mayan prophecy on Google Video, which I personally don't think is all that factual but interesting nonetheless, and its thrust is very similar to what you're thinking of regarding stages of creation as preparation for higher levels of creation. I think the programming metaphors can make a lot of sense. I think a type of evolution derivative can be thought of within a Genesis framework (the text saying, for instance, that the earth brought forth creatures after God's declaration to create them) but that the theory of evolution itself is not amenable to creation because the theory explicitly denies an outside divine architect of the process.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the theory of evolution explicitly denies a divine architect. Certainly there are people out there who would insist that it does, but in my personal opinion it would be foolish to do so as a) it's unknown/unknowable, and b) it's pretty much irrelevant. Evolution can exist with or without a creator, and there are at least as many people as say it can't who say it does.

But to digress, it's interesting that the introduction to chapter 2 says that these are generations of creation in the "yom" (that commonly means "day") God made earth and heaven, thereby implying that the "day" being spoken of there contains a lot more than 24 hours. Also, the commentators state the days of creation in chapter 1 are no longer than 24 hours but that, at the same time those days contain a lot more than their nominal length:

It's strange that it talks of the day that God 'made earth and heaven', seeing as the two were created on separate days (the 3rd and 2nd respectively). While I definitely find the idea that the days of creation were not literal days to be interesting, I'm not sure I can see that it's supported in the text. 'God called to the light: "Day," and to the darkness He called: "Night." And there was evening and there was morning, one day.' would certainly seem to suggest that a Day of creation is equivalent to our current understanding of day. Of course the fact that there was no Earth for another 2 days makes you wonder. On the other hand, it could definitely also be the case that when God passed on the Torah to Moses He used the word 'yom' to indicate some divine unit of time that is not equivalent to our day, and that the word 'yom' was merely adopted from that to refer to a solar day out of confusion, misunderstanding, semantic drift, or what have you.

This guy seems to think that Jewish tradition maintains that the days of creation were literal, solar days. However, I'm not sure how much I trust his interpretation of things...

There are obviously deeper meanings within the text than what many devout Christians who merely see seven days of creation and call it at that would like to believe.

Agreed. I suspect that between the two of us in just the course of this conversation we've put more thought into the matter than many who would consider themselves devout Christians...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If one believes in a Creator, they may either view scientific evidence as evidence of a Creator or argue the evidence.

Now you're discrediting any scientist who is a theist -- and any laymen who uses logical thinking in his/her life as well.
Plus it shows what I've said earlier: you neither understand science nor religion properly, all your confusion is a result of that. I think you would use the term `presuppositions' here.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If one does not believe in a Creator, they will not regard scientific evidence as evidence of a Creator and may use it to argue against the ideal of a Creator or "creation. Again, laypeople.

No, this is an erroneous conclusion.
Most (scientific) evidence has nothing to do with God in the eyes of laymen. They will not view evidence that material A is more durable than material B as evidence for or against a God. They will not see the weather patterns of the seasons as arguments for either way. People use scientific reasoning all the time. Or at least make use of it and take it for granted. But the vast majority of them do not see this as evidence for or against a creator, because they understand that one has nothing to do with the other.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Science cannot regard "creators" because this foundation is not suitable for the scientific method.

Again wrong.
Science cannot make any claims beyond things you cannot test. That includes faith. But that doesn't mean science `cannot regard "creators",' it means science cannot test whether there is or isn't a creator. Scientifically, it's an undecidable question, so it's entirely a matter of faith. Even better, whether God exists or not does not interfere with scientific results!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This indifference should not be regarded as evidence against a Creator as the scientific method can neither prove or disprove a deity. A thing (or elements thereof) cannot be both natural and supernatural.

You got that one right.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean presupposition by its definition. I guess I don't know how else to explain this more clearly to you. I'm not saying anything objectionable, but you insist on being argumentative.

It's not about being objectionable, you're throwing around the word presupposition and you leave it to the reader which presuppositions you actually mean. Instead of saying what it is exactly you object to, you argue that `you just can't see it because of your presuppositions.' This is not a good way to foster a discussion.

You identify presuppositions with some vague notion of philosophical foundation, which is alright, although in my opinion the word presupposition is not the right one. But you make two mistakes: first of all, you seem to think that it is possible to be without `presuppositions' (in your sense). Every person has to make basic assumptions and quite a few of them fall into the realm of faith. The second mistake you make is that you mix conclusions you derive from these `presuppositions' with presuppositions themselves. E. g. you construe that if you believe in a creator, then they cannot view scientific evidence as such.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

So is there any way to test for a God?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I would like to also adress Bigmac's excellent arguments, but unfortunately I don't have enough time today, if God wills, I will reply tommorow.

That's very kind of you to say, Taliesin. These really aren't arguments I'm putting forth in a strict sense - I'd call this more like light to moderate reasoning, with friends.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the theory of evolution explicitly denies a divine architect. Certainly there are people out there who would insist that it does, but in my personal opinion it would be foolish to do so as a) it's unknown/unknowable, and b) it's pretty much irrelevant. Evolution can exist with or without a creator, and there are at least as many people as say it can't who say it does.

Fair enough. But if one defines evolution as "descent through modification by way of natural selection," then that doesn't leave much room for the role of a Creator. And it should be stated for those who don't know my position that I reject evolution, as defined in those dictionary definition terms, as anywhere near a sufficient cause for the existence of life (from the lowliest amoeba on up).

It's strange that it talks of the day that God 'made earth and heaven', seeing as the two were created on separate days (the 3rd and 2nd respectively). While I definitely find the idea that the days of creation were not literal days to be interesting, I'm not sure I can see that it's supported in the text. 'God called to the light: "Day," and to the darkness He called: "Night." And there was evening and there was morning, one day.' would certainly seem to suggest that a Day of creation is equivalent to our current understanding of day. Of course the fact that there was no Earth for another 2 days makes you wonder. On the other hand, it could definitely also be the case that when God passed on the Torah to Moses He used the word 'yom' to indicate some divine unit of time that is not equivalent to our day, and that the word 'yom' was merely adopted from that to refer to a solar day out of confusion, misunderstanding, semantic drift, or what have you.

That's certainly a possibility. The Torah explicitly says to honor the seventh day in remembrance of God's refraining from creation on the seventh day, although it is never says that His creation days are equivalent to our solar days (and it actually suggests otherwise). (That parallel is what causes, in part, absolute literalist Christians to assert that they were days like our days.) There may be a more precise definition of the yemot of creation that is not held by commonly known traditions. Or perhaps it's information that was not given.

In yet another perspective, the article I linked to discusses in brief scientist Gerald Schroder's theory that from God's perspective they were days of regular duration but from the perspective of relative time the periods that it would mesh with geologically accepted time scales.

It should be stated that the generally accepted Orthodox Jewish opinion is that we are 5768 years from Creation, but it's important to note that that's the date from the creation of Adam (the sixth day) and not from the outset of creation of heaven and earth itself.

This guy seems to think that Jewish tradition maintains that the days of creation were literal, solar days. However, I'm not sure how much I trust his interpretation of things...

Yeah, that's the type of absolute literalist Christian opinion to which I was referring.

Agreed. I suspect that between the two of us in just the course of this conversation we've put more thought into the matter than many who would consider themselves devout Christians...

Well, that makes sense because the two of us are Jews. I'm not trying to bash absolute literalist Christians but thought it would be helpful to draw some distinctions there. Some would prefer to lump anyone who countenances the divine (or the possibility of the divine) into one stereotypical group.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

So is there any way to test for a God?

There is no way to decide this question on a scientific basis, it's purely a matter of faith.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There is no way to decide this question on a scientific basis, it's purely a matter of faith.

Well I guess it is a pointless debate then.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well I guess it is a pointless debate then.

Well, the question was different, not whether you can test whether there is God, but something that can be scientifically tested: the age of the Earth, human ancestry, etc.

Not all things people believe in have to be `true.' Some of the things they do believe in may even contradict themselves (although you cannot test neither, for instance).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well I guess it is a pointless debate then.

If there were a way to "test" scientifically the truth of God, humans would lose their capacity to choose to believe or not to believe and thus their free will. Judaism teaches that free will is maintained divinely by a balancing of truth and falsehood in the world. Jews believe that eventually the truth will be revealed for all the world to see, but until that time we have choice.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Fair enough. But if one defines evolution as "descent through modification by way of natural selection," then that doesn't leave much room for the role of a Creator.

Why does that leave little space for the divine?
You could believe that God created the rules (i. e. the laws of physics) and started things, like flicking the first domino and the rest will fall by themselves. The laws that govern this universe are very, very complex and delicately balanced … 

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If there were a way to "test" scientifically the truth of God, humans would lose their capacity to choose to believe or not to believe and thus their free will.

If there's anything the internet has taught us, it's that humans can choose to believe or disbelieve anything. Scientifically tested or not.