Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution?

How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's a good thing they aren't mutually exclusive.
There's your chorus!
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Oh yeah, this is so helpful...

So I'm "prejudiced" because I validly interpret the Torah at the "peshat" level? I think you're confused.

Regarding the "esoteric" interpretation: an 14th century book like the Zohar doesn't shed any light on the meaning of the Torah. It merely tells us what a 14th century Jew thought about the Torah.

For a more rational viewpoint, here's the opinion of a 1st century Jew with more credibility: Philo on the Creation.

BTW, I have a pretty good idea about how the Bible was constructed: different oral traditions were assembled and redacted over time. The JEPD theory is pretty well known.
The fact that you choose to only view the Torah as peshat is where you err. Not that I blame you, it gives you more fuel for your crusade. It's much easier to tear something down when you decide to ignore widely accepted meanings and interpretations that undermine your position.

You do understand that nothing in Philo's writings contradict the Zohar, it's only the commentary that pulls in that direction? I invite you to look more deeply into the history of that tradition before trying to play the game of, "Moshe De Lion was a kook". Most of his references arise from oral traditions that predate the Ophites. See, I realize that it would be difficult for a person several thousand years ago to express a concept as scientifically complex as the Creation or evolution. It would be similar to a person in the 15th century trying to explain a rocket launching, which would likely sound like this:

"Men constructed a tower, and by studying air and fire they were able to leave the grip of the Earth to hurtle towards the moon and stars."

Not very accurate by our standards, but it's still true.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
There's your chorus!
Fine, as long as I get royalties.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The JEPD theory is pretty well known.
And pretty roundly rejected by modern scholars, too.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
And pretty roundly rejected by modern scholars, too.
Is it, now? Are you telling me modern scholars have returned to the view that Moses himself wrote the Torah?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The fact that you choose to only view the Torah as peshat is where you err. Not that I blame you, it gives you more fuel for your crusade.
That's not the reason at all. The fact is that this framework of peshat/Talmud/Zohar/etc gives anyone free reign to explain away biblical absurdities instead of admitting that the Torah isn't the inerrant word of God.

You do understand that nothing in Philo's writings contradict the Zohar, it's only the commentary that pulls in that direction?
Philo advocated allegorical interpretation; that's why Judaism ignored him.

I invite you to look more deeply into the history of that tradition before trying to play the game of, "Moshe De Lion was a kook".
I have no idea if he was a kook. I only know that his interpretations were regarded as novel innovations, not established oral traditions.
     
rogermugs
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: over there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 06:08 PM
 
the same way you reconcile your diet with three cups of plain canola oil.

you dont unless you dont mind the hersheys squirts.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 06:14 PM
 
Regarding the question posed in the OP, there is only a conflict if one abandons all common sense and chooses to interpret the Adam & Eve story literally. If one interprets it as an allegory as it most certainly is then the whole question is moot. I mean come on people .... for Adam & Eve to be literally true that would inherently require this little thing called incest which the last time I checked was against the rules in the OT. The thought of humanity having its origins in a situation reminiscent of inbred trailer park trash ought to give every "literalist" pause. LOL

OAW
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 06:23 PM
 
Adam & Eve were aliens similar to sea cucumbers or frogs, placed on Earth 6,000 years ago by Mukor (a). They could change their sex at will and, if there isn't anyone else to mate with, will reproduce asexually. That's how you got a bunch of people from nothing without resorting to incest.


a. Mukor - "Mukor rules all galaxies."
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Is it, now? Are you telling me modern scholars have returned to the view that Moses himself wrote the Torah?
Many modern scholars now assert single authorship of the Torah, some of whom attribute it to Ezra, which is just plain stupid given evidence like Ketef Hinnom but closer to the truth, at least.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
So that's evidence?
Evidence is all around us. What is at odds here is differing interpretations of that evidence as filtered through presupposition. It is like reconciling a square peg with a round hole. There are zealous proponents of Christianity that cannot define the most elementary aspects of it just as there are zealous proponents of evolution that are lucky to have spell-check. The less one believes in Scripture, the more critical they are of evidence that affirms it. The more one believes in Scripture, the less critical they are of that same evidence. The more one believes in Scripture, the more critical of evidence affirming evolution and the less one believes in Scripture, the less critical they are of the same evidence. The good news is, this aspect of human nature is not exclusive to the evolution-creationist debate.

One thing's for sure, there is an absolute truth. Regardless of what happened, we know for certain something did. When people try too hard to reconcile Scripture with Science, they may render themselves; scientists heralded among those in the scientific community, theologians heralded among those in the religious community, or confused laypeople with Scripture that changes daily.
ebuddy
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Not to mention frogs falling from the sky,
This isn't dismantling your argument but frogs (and fish) raining from the sky is actually a well documented phenomenon:

Raining animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Is it, now? Are you telling me modern scholars have returned to the view that Moses himself wrote the Torah?


Stop arguing with Big Mac, you might as well be arguing with Brick Wall.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Regarding the question posed in the OP, there is only a conflict if one abandons all common sense and chooses to interpret the Adam & Eve story literally. If one interprets it as an allegory as it most certainly is then the whole question is moot. I mean come on people .... for Adam & Eve to be literally true that would inherently require this little thing called incest which the last time I checked was against the rules in the OT.
Maybe you've failed to consider that incest was not expressly forbidden until Leviticus 18-20. According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were created perfect. You might know by the time of Leviticus there were a great many people.

The thought of humanity having its origins in a situation reminiscent of inbred trailer park trash ought to give every "literalist" pause. LOL
This is the product of our healthy prejudice against it. Incest was not only regular practice among royalty, but was not as taboo historically as it is to us today.

*WIth as much common sense as you claim to have, you must know that most people who live in trailer parks are not "inbred" or practicing incest. It's also pretty unkind to refer to people living this way as "trashy".
ebuddy
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2008, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Adam & Eve were aliens similar to sea cucumbers or frogs, placed on Earth 6,000 years ago by Mukor (a). They could change their sex at will and, if there isn't anyone else to mate with, will reproduce asexually. That's how you got a bunch of people from nothing without resorting to incest.


a. Mukor - "Mukor rules all galaxies."
Mucor



     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 01:19 AM
 
Hah, that's cool. Talk about a coincidence.

This only underlines Mukor's great power.

Originally Posted by Eug View Post
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 01:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
That's not the reason at all. The fact is that this framework of peshat/Talmud/Zohar/etc gives anyone free reign to explain away biblical absurdities instead of admitting that the Torah isn't the inerrant word of God.
In your opinion, of course. It's not difficult to understand that these writings were multi-layered. You make it sound like such a mechanism for reading scripture is new, designed by some insidious modern cult to explain their religious motivations. It isn't. Atheists, such as yourself, can lob bombs all you like, this method is as old as scripture itself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 04:28 AM
 
Easy. Adam and Eve never existed. The bible is just stories and myths. And not for children either. God was one scary mother****er.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 09:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's not difficult to understand that these writings were multi-layered.
I don't deny that they are.
You make it sound like such a mechanism for reading scripture is new, designed by some insidious modern cult to explain their religious motivations.
I never said anything of the sort. Stop stuffing words in my mouth.
... this method is as old as scripture itself.
No, it's only as old as Second Temple Judaism, give or take a century. When the Torah was written, ideas like gematria and allegorical interpretation were still unknown. And the oral Torah/Talmudic interpretation does not extend all the way back to Moses, and no serious scholar believes it does.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I don't deny that they are.
It sort of seems that you are.

And the oral Torah/Talmudic interpretation does not extend all the way back to Moses, and no serious scholar believes it does.
How can you be so sure? Jewish scholars believe oral Torah does come from Moshe at Sinai, but I guess you wouldn't believe the Jewish account of Jewish things.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
You don't. One is a theory based on evidence the other a myth based on an oral history.
Since reality is one way or the other, and if you think that truth lies in both ideas, then you have to somehow look if there is some reconciliation possible.

Let's see what we have:

A story in which God created our sunsystem and adam and eve within six days. There is the formulation "and then it was evening and then it was morning", which marks a beginning and end of the day. Now, one could say that the days could be God's days and therefore not the 24hrs that one could read into it, but instead anything from a thousand years to billions of years.. but what effect has that on the order of the things created?

Do we have scientifical methods to determine with certainty that something is older than something else and what ages they have, so as to compare it with the order that things were created according to the six-day-story?

But it goes on, after the creation-story there is the adam/eve link which get inserted in one of the latter days of creation and then a genealogy gets described from Adam/Eve to Cain/Abel... with exact ages for every one involved up to Noah and Abraham... up until Joseph.

If the story of Adam/Eve and the sixday-creation was meant allegorical, then all the story up to Joseph was meant likewise allegorical, including Noah, Abraham, Jacob...

That's a pretty long allegory.

With Joseph the Genesis-chapters end, and Exodus starts after an unspecified amount of time has passed as the genealogy doesn't get continued in detail:

These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. 5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy [a] in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.

6 Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, 7 but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them.

8 Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power in Egypt.
Source: BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Taliesin
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 11:41 AM
 
We have been dominating your thread until now. What is your view of this debate, Taliesin? Is the Islamic view of creation amenable to an evolutionist view?

While we're on this subject, it should be mentioned that a mainstream Orthodox Jewish view is that the world, everything inorganic and organic, was created fully formed and functional - Adam and Eve were not created as babies, nor was the earth gradually formed, but rather each stage of creation was complete upon the utterance of the Lord.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
We have been dominating your thread until now. What is your view of this debate, Taliesin?
I very much like the fact, that the debate has been for the most part very civilised, kudos to the macnners here for that.

I still don't have much time to digest through every argument and to reply to the core-arguments, but hopefully on the weekend or monday, if God wills, I will have more time to take part in the discussion.

From flying over the postings it seems that we haven't yet reached the point of discussing the methods of scientific age-determination and their reliability/certainty and what effect they have on the details of Genesis 1 and 2.

See you hopefully soon again.

Taliesin
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 11:56 AM
 
Science uses various radiometric dating methods to come up with those terrifically old ages of things that are so often cited. The dates that are found are used to date the age of the earth, and vice versa. Many accept with complete trust those dates, but others point to problematic methods (relative dating, uniformitarian assumptions) and the discordant dates that are often found as proof that such dating may well be wildly inaccurate.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
It sort of seems that you are.
The Torah has multiple layers because it has multiple authors.
How can you be so sure? Jewish scholars believe oral Torah does come from Moshe at Sinai, but I guess you wouldn't believe the Jewish account of Jewish things.

Fixed. Some religious people believe oral Torah does come from Moshe at Sinai, but I guess you wouldn't believe the religious account of religious things.
Many Jewish scholars are also rightly skeptical of Moses being the author of either the Torah or the oral Torah. Your belief in the Mosaic authorship is just like any other religious doctrine: faith without evidence. The notion that the Torah was authored by Moses is contradicted by textual evidence of multiple authorship. The notion that Moses received the basis of oral Torah around 1250 BCE and it was faithful transmitted until written down more than a millennium later is plainly absurd.

Believe what you like. Just don't expect to be your beliefs to be treated seriously by non-devotees.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
The Torah has multiple layers because it has multiple authors.
According to your belief.

Many Jewish scholars are also rightly skeptical of Moses being the author of either the Torah or the oral Torah.
Not Jewish scholars. Secular scholars who are of Jewish descent, perhaps, but that's not what I mean when I use the term Jewish scholar.

Your belief in the Mosaic authorship is just like any other religious doctrine: faith without evidence. The notion that the Torah was authored by Moses is contradicted by textual evidence of multiple authorship. The notion that Moses received the basis of oral Torah around 1250 BCE and it was faithful transmitted until written down more than a millennium later is plainly absurd.
According to your belief. As for me, I don't only have the written records. My father handed down to me the knowledge that Torah is truth, as his father gave to my father, an unbroken chain back to Sinai. I know for a fact that he would not lie to me, that his father would not have lied to him, and so on. I know for a fact that all these things happened, and so do millions of fellow Jews who were handed the same knowledge from their fathers.

Believe what you like. Just don't expect to be your beliefs to be treated seriously by non-devotees.
And you can believe what you like, including assuming that secular scholars who are consistently humbled by evidence confirming the biblical record after they declare biblical history to be false, have any grasp on great truths. (When the kingdom of David is confirmed by archeology going on daily in Eretz Yisrael, it becomes hard for even the Arab deniers to deny King David. And if one cannot deny King David, how can one deny the basis of David, Sinai?) Don't expect your beliefs to be treated seriously by Jews who know their history.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Apr 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Maybe you've failed to consider that incest was not expressly forbidden until Leviticus 18-20. According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were created perfect. You might know by the time of Leviticus there were a great many people.
Perhaps. But God's Law is supposed to be eternal ... n'est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is the product of our healthy prejudice against it. Incest was not only regular practice among royalty, but was not as taboo historically as it is to us today.
Incest has been taboo and is not the result of mere "prejudice". The risks of serious birth defects is significantly enhanced in the children of incestuous parents. Certainly it was a practiced by many European royal families for political and economic reasons, but the effects were not always advantageous considering the deformities and sickliness that occurred in many of these families.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
*WIth as much common sense as you claim to have, you must know that most people who live in trailer parks are not "inbred" or practicing incest. It's also pretty unkind to refer to people living this way as "trashy".
Never said they were. But clearly there exists those who fit the description. The point was that for humanity to literally come from Adam & Eve then the first generations after Adam & Even by definition had to be the product of incest. Something which every major world religion considers taboo. In fact, the incest taboo is nearly universal across all human societies.

OAW
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
As for me, I don't only have the written records. My father handed down to me the knowledge that Torah is truth, as his father gave to my father, an unbroken chain back to Sinai. I know for a fact that he would not lie to me, that his father would not have lied to him, and so on. I know for a fact that all these things happened, and so do millions of fellow Jews who were handed the same knowledge from their fathers.
Wow. Clearly, there's no point in debating with you.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Incest has been taboo and is not the result of mere "prejudice". The risks of serious birth defects is significantly enhanced in the children of incestuous parents.
Um, that's why he called it a "healthy prejudice."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps. But God's Law is supposed to be eternal ... n'est-ce pas?
It is eternal but was not binding on the generations that preceded its revelation. Adam and Eve were given only one commandment. And actually, the laws of Exodus through Deuteronomy apply to the Jewish people specifically. The prohibition on sexual immor[]ality (including incest) is part of the 7 Laws of Noah, which are binding on mankind.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Wow. Clearly, there's no point in debating with you.
I didn't know that point would cause you to respond with such indignation. Ah well. You know, I've noticed that it's hard when I give up on trying to debate with someone, so I don't usually do it. I have faith that eventually some truth will sink into the mind of my adversary, so I continue to press. Otherwise I feel like I've lost. It must hurt to have to give up like that, lpk.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Apr 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Um, that's why he called it a "healthy prejudice."
Well I'll respectfully disagree.

prej·u·dice Audio Help [prej-uh-dis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

prejudiced - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Given the known issues with birth defects and the detrimental effects on familial relationships, I daresay the incest taboo is not rooted in "opinion" or "feelings" that have no basis in "knowledge, thought, or reason".

OAW
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's allegory, much like the "wheels within wheels" spoken of in Ezekiel 1:15-17.
Technically, though, Ezekiel's vision isn't an allegory. Allegories are used to make things clearer, not more obscure.

I've often wondered about those wheels. Most of the depiction is reasonably clear: 4 cherubs supporting God's throne, as opposed to the 2 cherubs being the Mercy Seat of the Ark - hence an epiphany twice as glorious as the one to Moses. But those wheels lack prior biblical reference. I'd say that they are carrying the Throne (much as four men would carry the Ark by its poles), but the description seems to imply the cherubs are moving the wheels, not the other way. Oh well, it's just dancing angels and such...
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The prohibition on sexual immortality (including incest) is part of the 7 Laws of Noah, which are binding on mankind.
I don't know about you all, but I would love to be sexually immortal.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
According to your belief. As for me, I don't only have the written records. My father handed down to me the knowledge that Torah is truth, as his father gave to my father, an unbroken chain back to Sinai. I know for a fact that he would not lie to me, that his father would not have lied to him, and so on. I know for a fact that all these things happened, and so do millions of fellow Jews who were handed the same knowledge from their fathers.
Are you being serious here?

The gaping hole in this "logic" is that these fathers don't need to lie. They just need to make a mistake. And since we're human and entirely fallible, everyone on this planet makes mistakes every day. And as you start talking about how things are handed down over generations, then your mistakes multiple like flies.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
God was one scary mother-
- shut yo mouth!
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Are you being serious here?

The gaping hole in this "logic" is that these fathers don't need to lie. They just need to make a mistake. And since we're human and entirely fallible, everyone on this planet makes mistakes every day. And as you start talking about how things are handed down over generations, then your mistakes multiple like flies.

greg
Yeah, mistakes. Mistakes like who lived and who died. Who did what in life, down to minute and sometimes seemingly minor details. Who witnessed and participated in supernatural events. An entire nation would have to mistakenly cling to a grand "mistake" about a singularly unique and unparalleled event in human history, revelation at Sinai. Huge Mistakes concerning the 1300 years of the miraculous biblical history that came subsequent to it. They would testify to seeing it with their own eyes, pass that down to their children. All done quite mistakenly, right? Yeah right, that's would be a huge Stnank, to use SB terminology.

You believe the Torah was redacted many times over the years, contrary to the testimony of my nation that says it is an unaltered divine text. Where are the earlier versions or testimonials to the redactions? Wouldn't there have been at least some bold enough to stand up to the redactors and proclaim that the nation was being duped, if what you envision actually occurred? Where is the evidence for your belief?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The less one believes in Scripture, the more critical they are of evidence that affirms it. The more one believes in Scripture, the less critical they are of that same evidence. The more one believes in Scripture, the more critical of evidence affirming evolution and the less one believes in Scripture, the less critical they are of the same evidence. The good news is, this aspect of human nature is not exclusive to the evolution-creationist debate.
This is false, faith in God has nothing to do with science, there is no interference or a need to give up one in favor of the other. Outside of America, this conflict between religious beliefs and factual science does not exist in the way you know it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Yeah, mistakes...

I think your reading a lot into StM's post. He's approaching this a bit more casually than you, which should make sense.

I'm thinking both "mistake" and "redaction" aren't quite the right words here. The way the Torah has been passed down makes both of these things unlikely. However there is the period before that protocol was in place, where all kinds of shenanigans could have been perpetrated, and there would be no way for us to know.

Likewise, and I certainly could be wrong, but I don't think StM would insist that the Torah isn't the divine word of God, he would just assess a very low probability to it. On the other hand, it seems like you are insisting that the Torah is the divine word of God, and assess a zero probability to it being assembled by mere mortals.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't want to put words in either of your mouths, and my statement "I certainly could be wrong" is an invitation to correct me.
     
aristotles
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 04:02 PM
 
Speaking of evolution, why is there now a theory going that there was one Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that gave rise to all humans?

Isn't it funny how theories of science always seem to come back to resemble the very things the scientists scoffed at years earlier? It is as if they took elements from the creation story and just changed a few things around to better fit in with the theory of evolution.

Oh the sweet irony.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
Isn't it funny how theories of science always seem to come back to resemble the very things the scientists scoffed at years earlier? It is as if they took elements from the creation story and just changed a few things around to better fit in with the theory of evolution.

I don't think the term "Eve" in this context has the meaning you think it does.

They're not taking elements of the story, they're naming things based on the story.


Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
Oh the sweet irony.

Indeed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 06:04 PM
 
@aristotles
You're mixing predictions made within the framework of a theory with the theory itself.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think your reading a lot into StM's post. He's approaching this a bit more casually than you, which should make sense.
In truth I thought I was replying to lpk and not StM with that reply, but I don't think it makes too much of a difference because the reply was also directed at the general audience of skeptics anyway.

I'm thinking both "mistake" and "redaction" aren't quite the right words here. The way the Torah has been passed down makes both of these things unlikely.
Thank you for noting that.

However there is the period before that protocol was in place, where all kinds of shenanigans could have been perpetrated, and there would be no way for us to know.
What period would that be (I ask simply for the sake of argument)? What proof exists of such a period? We could all envision various scenarios that run contrary to historical knowledge, but simply because we can envision scenarios does not make them possible or even plausible. For example, I could envision that prior to the ratification of the Constitution some secret cabal changed key words in the document, but if that were the case we'd have at least some evidence from that age, men of that generation shouting that the Constitution had been tampered with. There isn't a single source from antiquity that I know of that challenged the authenticity of the Torah as coming from Moshe at Sinai. Higher Criticism was largely a 19th and 20th Century advent.

Likewise, and I certainly could be wrong, but I don't think StM would insist that the Torah isn't the divine word of God, he would just assess a very low probability to it. On the other hand, it seems like you are insisting that the Torah is the divine word of God, and assess a zero probability to it being assembled by mere mortals.
I'd say that's pretty much correct.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't want to put words in either of your mouths, and my statement "I certainly could be wrong" is an invitation to correct me.
Very thoughtful and diplomatic post, subego. If only I would bother to phrase things as politely, perhaps fewer people around here would dislike me.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2008, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Wow. Clearly, there's no point in debating with you.
This must be when I'm supposed to say I told you so.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Yeah, mistakes. Mistakes like who lived and who died. Who did what in life, down to minute and sometimes seemingly minor details. Who witnessed and participated in supernatural events. An entire nation would have to mistakenly cling to a grand "mistake" about a singularly unique and unparalleled event in human history, revelation at Sinai. Huge Mistakes concerning the 1300 years of the miraculous biblical history that came subsequent to it. They would testify to seeing it with their own eyes, pass that down to their children. All done quite mistakenly, right? Yeah right, that's would be a huge Stnank, to use SB terminology.

You believe the Torah was redacted many times over the years, contrary to the testimony of my nation that says it is an unaltered divine text. Where are the earlier versions or testimonials to the redactions? Wouldn't there have been at least some bold enough to stand up to the redactors and proclaim that the nation was being duped, if what you envision actually occurred? Where is the evidence for your belief?
Man, your brain has been sucked dry. You need intervention badly.

I see faeries and pixies on my front lawn. You can't see them but I can. My mother told me they were there. She wouldn't lie to me. Her mother told her. I can see them because I have faith.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think your reading a lot into StM's post. He's approaching this a bit more casually than you, which should make sense.

I'm thinking both "mistake" and "redaction" aren't quite the right words here. The way the Torah has been passed down makes both of these things unlikely. However there is the period before that protocol was in place, where all kinds of shenanigans could have been perpetrated, and there would be no way for us to know.

Likewise, and I certainly could be wrong, but I don't think StM would insist that the Torah isn't the divine word of God, he would just assess a very low probability to it. On the other hand, it seems like you are insisting that the Torah is the divine word of God, and assess a zero probability to it being assembled by mere mortals.

Edit: just to be clear, I don't want to put words in either of your mouths, and my statement "I certainly could be wrong" is an invitation to correct me.
Thanks for the clarification/disclaimer. I think your assessment was pretty spot-on.

I did find it amusing that the reply was "my people say that they participated in supernatural events thousands of years ago and this book came straight from God. Why should I not believe them if you can't provide evidence to the contrary?"

Stated in those terms, it's an argument that can never be lost, from his perspective.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Man, your brain has been sucked dry. You need intervention badly.

I see faeries and pixies on my front lawn. You can't see them but I can. My mother told me they were there. She wouldn't lie to me. Her mother told her. I can see them because I have faith.
Now, that's not necessary is it?

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Now, that's not necessary is it?
Are you questioning my faith? My mother, if she were still alive would swear to it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 06:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is false, faith in God has nothing to do with science, there is no interference or a need to give up one in favor of the other.
I didn't say you had to give one or the other up. I'm saying that dogma is not exclusive to those of faith. Laypeople filter evidences through presupposition.

Outside of America, this conflict between religious beliefs and factual science does not exist in the way you know it.
I don't know how this is relevant to what I've said at all. I suppose maybe elsewhere folks are able to debate these concepts with more civility and less irrelevant xenophobia?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps. But God's Law is supposed to be eternal ... n'est-ce pas?
As far as I'm concerned, God's Law is eternal. It is also evident that the species will propagate.

Incest has been taboo and is not the result of mere "prejudice". The risks of serious birth defects is significantly enhanced in the children of incestuous parents. Certainly it was a practiced by many European royal families for political and economic reasons, but the effects were not always advantageous considering the deformities and sickliness that occurred in many of these families.
I was careful in stating that this is a "healthy" prejudice for just the reasons you cite. Incest increases the risk that recessive alleles will be expressed in offspring. That's why I was also clear that Adam and Eve (per Scripture) were created perfect. While there is a high risk of disease among those born of related parents, there is a higher risk to not propagating the species. There is nothing to suggest that nature regards incest as "taboo" when it is necessary to survival. I find it hard to believe by either the evolution account or the Scriptural account, that incest was unnecessary.

Never said they were. But clearly there exists those who fit the description.
I still don't understand how the sweeping generalization is justified. Certainly, we all meet one stigma or another. It hardly does any one of us good to rise above through action, only to be knocked back by stigma. Nonetheless, I see a lot of these generalizations among those who would otherwise be quick to rail on me for lacking compassion for the poor because of a political affiliation.

The point was that for humanity to literally come from Adam & Eve then the first generations after Adam & Even by definition had to be the product of incest.
I don't see how nature's account would be any different do you? So it seems regardless of which view you hold, you're still connected to that blasted "trailer park trash".

Something which every major world religion considers taboo. In fact, the incest taboo is nearly universal across all human societies.
My point was that it had not always been regarded with this much disdain. Is that wrong?
ebuddy
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2008, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I didn't say you had to give one or the other up. I'm saying that dogma is not exclusive to those of faith. Laypeople filter evidences through presupposition.
Science is not a long succession of presuppositions. Nor is it similar to faith in the respect that you `simply have to believe it.' Science compliments faith -- as Einstein put it `Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' Science deals with theories that are derived from an abundance of facts. You can test predictions of theories experimentally. The closest thing scientists have to dogmas are accepted theories (which naturally come with a range of validity). These do not change easily as they are backed up by evidence (and not faith). Evidence is not `filtered through presupposition.'
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't know how this is relevant to what I've said at all. I suppose maybe elsewhere folks are able to debate these concepts with more civility and less irrelevant xenophobia?
It's not a xenophobic remark when I add that outside of America, the Theory of Evolution is generally accepted and pseudo-scientific alternatives are not. I was giving some perspective on this beyond the US.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,