[Atomic Rooster]

I am curious yellow.

For all god believers. What does he do all day? And what is heaven like? Why would some angels say I've had enough, leave and form there own club? Were they tired of god wanting to be constantly worshipped?

I'm serious about this.

[ironknee]

as i see it the adam and eve story has it's problems. ie mrs cain.

but wait, didn't god kill all the people with the noah's ark story?

noah, his wife, his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people after the flood...so, there still is a ting of inter-family f-ing

oh btw how did noah get all the animals from around the world on the ark?

and of course what about dino? some of you think dinosaurs were on the ark itself!

what did they feed tyrannosaurus? and with what?

where there animals that entered the ark but never made it off alive?

sigh

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

STFU.

I have seen Shrek, that stuff is real. It's on TV.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

someone has been watching Bill Maher

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why would some angels say I've had enough, leave and form there own club? Were they tired of god wanting to be constantly worshipped?

That story isn't in the Bible. It's from the non-canonical Book of Enoch. It was very popular during the Second Temple period, and the early Christians probably believed in it.

[design219]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That story isn't in the Bible.

Is there a good book or on-line resource that lists the stories that didn't quite make the Bible cut? I've heard of the Gnostic Verses and I've got a Bible with the apocrypha and I'm sure there are many more. I would like to know more about what was cut, edited or included and why.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

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.'

I said laypeople filter evidence through presupposition. Even if I were to provide evidence of scientific 'circular-reasoning' or retro-fitting evidence to presuppositions, you'd filter that evidence through the presupposition that science wouldn't dare. In this it seems we're either discussing the inerrancy of Scripture or of science which is not important. I'm merely citing an aspect of human nature not exclusive to proponents of the religious account. I don't dispute the theory of evolution, its predictability, or its affirmation in the scientific community.

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.

Why is it important that people "generally accept" the Theory of Evolution? They should certainly avail themselves of data encompassing the subject matter so they have a foundation for discourse. I cringe when I see some of the arguments from casual proponents of ID, but closing one's mind to other alternatives is not necessarily beneficial either. For example, I pop onto this website 'NewScientist' and I find an interesting article entitled confused about evolution

So your brother or mother is a creationist. Let them believe what they want, you might think. After all, it makes family get-togethers a lot easier and no difference to anyone else.

Or does it? Imagine if Mike Huckabee ends up as vice-president of the US – a mere heart attack away from the top job. Would you feel comfortable if the world's biggest superpower was run by a man who rejects evolution, thanks to the support of tens of millions of people who also refuse to accept the truth?

Why is the political bend necessary? A little bit here and there on global warming. A little bit on a (R) politician. Yay, all the basic food groups of leftist shilling in a pop-science rag. I particularly love the part about how this could affect major policy decisions like how to address the bird flu, tuberculosis, and wheat rust, ebola, and how we're altering species and... all the while I'm wondering what an evolutionist would do on all these issues? How they'd handle them any differently. Surely we have an example of this author's party of choice doing something more "educated". Except... I don't see any evidence of that.

How would belief that God created all things be destructive to governing the nation? After all, I'm guessing this author's favorite candidate is Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian who sought the spiritual advisory of a man who claims the US planted HIV to eradicate black people, owned and managed by rich, godless, white people or maybe it's Hillary and we get to listen to the two of them bicker about which one of them is more connected to communists and terrorists. But hey, these are the folks who generally accept the Theory of Evolution, they must be okay to govern.

BS presuppositions permeate this issue. Too often, it has absolutely nothing to do with an interest in science or evidence of any kind. Which of course, was my original point.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by design219 

Is there a good book or on-line resource that lists the stories that didn't quite make the Bible cut? I've heard of the Gnostic Verses and I've got a Bible with the apocrypha and I'm sure there are many more. I would like to know more about what was cut, edited or included and why.

Early Jewish Writings--Tanakh, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and More
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

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...

It does make it more clear, when you understand the context. It's a metaphor for the four elements and the four "worlds" of creation, "wheels" are a reference to cycles that have no end. At times the angels move the "wheels", and at other times the cycles cause the messengers to move. It's a very important lesson, one that explains how physical actions can cause results in the spiritual worlds, and vice-versa.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wow. Clearly, there's no point in debating with you.

Indeed, you have no desire to discuss religion just for the sake of discussion, like many others on this forum you simply want an excuse to be abusive to those of faith. Such people won't simply abandon their views based on your opinions, you know this and use it as a release for your own frustrations and doubts.

Just because you feel disillusion over your previous beliefs, you were Christian at one time, doesn't mean others feel the same way.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can't reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution. Besides, it's pointless to argue with people who believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

I would give you a detailed, thought-provoking view on this subject, however until you stop the pattern of abuse it would be the same as sowing grain on solid stone.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is the political bend necessary?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After all, I'm guessing this author's favorite candidate is Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian who sought the spiritual advisory of a man who claims the US planted HIV to eradicate black people, owned and managed by rich, godless, white people or maybe it's Hillary and we get to listen to the two of them bicker about which one of them is more connected to communists and terrorists. But hey, these are the folks who generally accept the Theory of Evolution, they must be okay to govern.

I think you've answered your own question.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I said laypeople filter evidence through presupposition. Even if I were to provide evidence of scientific 'circular-reasoning' or retro-fitting evidence to presuppositions, you'd filter that evidence through the presupposition that science wouldn't dare.

I still don't think you really know how (natural) sciences work, `retro-fitting evidence', etc. is certainly not part of it. I wouldn't `filter' anything either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In this it seems we're either discussing the inerrancy of Scripture or of science which is not important.

No, that's not what I'm talking about in the least.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is it important that people "generally accept" the Theory of Evolution? They should certainly avail themselves of data encompassing the subject matter so they have a foundation for discourse.

I can explain quite well why, because the Theory of Evolution is a great example how science (particularly in the US) is misunderstood. Your post is testimony to that. You speak of `tempering with evidence', `presuppositions' and `inerrancy of scripture or science'. Your post is an example of a failed science education (please don't take this personally). It shows that you don't know how science works and what it is all about. Most of all, it mirrors the sentiment that science and faith are at odds (just switch on Fox News, they refer to proponents of well-established scientific theories as `secular progressives', splitting them off from people of faith). In my opinion the root of this is that it isn't sufficiently taught what science can explain (and how it arrives at conclusions) and what it cannot explain. People feel threatened by science instead of embracing it. Plus, they feel threatened only by some selective Theories whose implications they don't like. You're right that Global Climate Change and Evolution are two of them. But there is not much discussion on other theories, you don't see any warning stickers about the theory of gravity, the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of atoms. If people knew what a scientific theory really is, much of this discussion could be avoided. If people stop thinking that science consists of a bunch of `presuppositions' that are fought for with religious zeal, but understand how the process of science really works, then they'd let science and religion simply live side-by-side, coexisting in harmony.

All of science should be approached with an open mind, not just some select theories (e. g. Evolution). So why is it important? Why should people, in particular Americans, care about this?

Well, your economy is based on science. And if your science education sucks, then you'll be in trouble rather sooner than later. I was amazed that the percentage of Americans steadily decreased the further up you went in the scientific food chain. This is not some xenophobic, anti-American non-sense, I think it is in your own interest to keep your science education strong.

Although I don't believe in God (I'm a Buddhist), Einstein's attitude is a very good description of mine:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.

He elaborated on this further, and although he wasn't thinking of Evolution at all when he made the following explanatory remarks, they fit this discussion perfectly.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse.

Meaning that God wouldn't make it look like the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that we have common ancestors with the great apes, his God is not a deceptive one. Or that water consists of molecules and so on. That's a philosophical assumption, though, but one that has been discussed by theologists over the centuries as well.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How would belief that God created all things be destructive to governing the nation?

I've stated at least twice that this is not a problem at all -- as long as you don't believe in the literal interpretation, there is no contradiction between faith in Genesis, for instance, and science. If not, you are governed by someone who doesn't really understand the underpinnings of science -- not good for a nation whose economy depends essentially on science.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I would give you a detailed, thought-provoking view on this subject...

Please don't. A link would do fine.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Indeed, you have no desire to discuss religion just for the sake of discussion, like many others on this forum you simply want an excuse to be abusive to those of faith.

Ridiculous notions deserve ridicule. If you tell me the world is flat, I'm gonna make fun of you.

Such people won't simply abandon their views based on your opinions, you know this and use it as a release for your own frustrations and doubts.

Regarding my own values, I have no such frustrations or doubts.

Just because you feel disillusion over your previous beliefs, you were Christian at one time, doesn't mean others feel the same way.

I wouldn't called them "previous beliefs." I grew up in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school, but wasn't devout. At most, I was a kind of Jeffersonian deist, not a Christian.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Please don't. A link would do fine.

I just used the search function and found that I've given this information three times in the last four years, feel free to do the same.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ridiculous notions deserve ridicule. If you tell me the world is flat, I'm gonna make fun of you.

No doubt, I believe that you're the type to make fun of anyone with a differing opinion in this area.

Regarding my own values, I have no such frustrations or doubts.

Your fervor suggests otherwise.

I wouldn't called them "previous beliefs." I grew up in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school, but wasn't devout. At most, I was a kind of Jeffersonian deist, not a Christian.

I'm not devout either, but I'm wise enough to know that there is substance to faith, whatever the source may be.

[zerostar]

This is one of the best things I have read from you. Although the truth in this is extremely hard to realize in actuality. We have debated this very topic, and while I didn't read this entire thready the same people are making the same arguments that I never got answers to years ago, yet they go on spouting these as if they are fact and not just their heavily vested views.

I am probably on of the best people (who works with the ToE) to understand you point. Because of my previous deep faith and now my teachings on evolution.

p.s. I know your view, but what is funny is how we are thinking totally opposite. :-D

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

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.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

... it would be the same as sowing grain on solid stone.

A nice allusion to Christ's parable of the sower.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Please don't. A link would do fine.

LMAO

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How do you reconcile Adam and Eve with evolution?

That's all I want to know..

Taliesin

Adam wore a condom.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I think you've answered your own question.

I've answered my question as to why science is important for choosing a politician?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Personally, I'm still waiting for all those skeletons of mid-human/apes to surface. I mean, there has to be what, millions of them somewhere, right? We can find dinosaurs six ways to Sunday, but we can't find the mid-evolution creatures?

What are you talking about? We've got loads of fossils. Sorry, buddy, there is no missing link. We have as clear a fossil record of the Homo family tree as we do of anything.

Remember, we find dinosaurs "six ways to Sunday" because various kinds of dinosaurs ruled the earth for 150 million years. We don't have any of their family trees filled in nearly as well as we do our own. Fossilization is a rare process. Not everything that dies gets fossilized. Did you know that there are no complete skeletons for the Tyrannosaurus, the best known of the dinosaurs?

Sorry to break it to you, the evidence is overwhelming. You're an ape.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No doubt, I believe that you're the type to make fun of anyone with a differing opinion in this area.



Your fervor suggests otherwise.



I'm not devout either, but I'm wise enough to know that there is substance to faith, whatever the source may be.

But there is also substance in reason. One needs to know which terrain calls for which.

How to lead our lives: faith.

How to understand our world: reason.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I still don't think you really know how (natural) sciences work, `retro-fitting evidence', etc. is certainly not part of it. I wouldn't `filter' anything either.

I didn't have to provide evidence and yet you have already filtered it.

I can explain quite well why, because the Theory of Evolution is a great example how science (particularly in the US) is misunderstood. Your post is testimony to that. You speak of `tempering with evidence', `presuppositions' and `inerrancy of scripture or science'. Your post is an example of a failed science education (please don't take this personally). It shows that you don't know how science works and what it is all about.

You missed the entire point of my posts here. Worse, you go on some tirade about how science does and does not work yet fail to make any specific point of your own. Please don't be offended, but I've seen this all before. It stems from what I think you'll find to be an unnecessarily defensive posture.

A. I'm not challenging the Theory of Evolution. I've already gone on record in this thread and in threads over the past couple of years that I have no problem accepting the scientific account of mutation, speciation, and genetics and yet I am also fully Christian. What I tell Christians is that they do not need to oppose man's current understanding of his universe, they need to learn it. Particularly in school. The last thing I'd want to hear is a young Christian telling me that he's having a hard time staying focused in science because he doesn't buy into the theory of evolution. Next he'll offer something about how if we evolved from apes they should no longer exist. If he wants to work in this field, he'd better well know it, understand its mechanisms, and embrace it with the interest of making it better. He may end up loving it.

B. My problem is not with science, my problem is with human nature and how it handles this issue and how it handles all issues for which there are differing opinions, views, and presuppositions. Even though I was careful to make sure we were discussing laypeople, you'll tell me why one particular discipline happens to produce super-humans. I think this is a harder sell than you.

C. I've given a perfectly reasonable explanation for why you shouldn't try so hard to reconcile faith with science. I'm not saying they're irreconcilable entirely, but you kind of go on to make my point about Americans, Christianity, and their misunderstood take on evolution. Then, you compound this with the ignorance from the other side, starting their argument with something about gradual progression. It makes no sense to listen to a bunch of blow-hards go at it back and forth when both parties have only a cursory understanding of their own disciplines, let alone the disciplines they feel they should be at odds with. Both parties would do well to avail themselves of more information first. To deny this is silly IMO. After all, you're a member here too.

Most of all, it mirrors the sentiment that science and faith are at odds (just switch on Fox News, they refer to proponents of well-established scientific theories as `secular progressives', splitting them off from people of faith).

I'm guessing they're pointing out what they see as the divisive nature of those who happen to be proponents of evolution among other things they've made entirely political. Does this bother you? Should we only point out the divisive nature of some, but not others? I'm just curious for the sake of illustrating perspectives and presuppositions in action.

In my opinion the root of this is that it isn't sufficiently taught what science can explain (and how it arrives at conclusions) and what it cannot explain. People feel threatened by science instead of embracing it. Plus, they feel threatened only by some selective Theories whose implications they don't like. You're right that Global Climate Change and Evolution are two of them. But there is not much discussion on other theories, you don't see any warning stickers about the theory of gravity, the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of atoms.

When it is found that any of the above create a new tax base, or system of governance, they will become arguable. Gravity? Start charging me for the use of it. Then we might want to hash over all those details of it again.

If people knew what a scientific theory really is, much of this discussion could be avoided. If people stop thinking that science consists of a bunch of `presuppositions' that are fought for with religious zeal, but understand how the process of science really works, then they'd let science and religion simply live side-by-side, coexisting in harmony.

Again, we're talking about laypeople. Most Christians have absolutely no problem with letting science and religion live side-by-side. After all, they do and evolution has withstood some pretty vigorous opposition. Yet, most Americans are Christians.

All of science should be approached with an open mind, not just some select theories (e. g. Evolution). So why is it important? Why should people, in particular Americans, care about this?

I don't think we're saying anything different here.

Well, your economy is based on science. And if your science education sucks, then you'll be in trouble rather sooner than later.

Uh-oh. You didn't waste any time. Let me guess what you're going to propose for economic policy...

I was amazed that the percentage of Americans steadily decreased the further up you went in the scientific food chain. This is not some xenophobic, anti-American non-sense, I think it is in your own interest to keep your science education strong.

First of all, I don't teach evolution. Why are you railing on me?
Secondly, do you have a link to show me this "scientific food chain" and the nationality of those within it?

Although I don't believe in God (I'm a Buddhist), Einstein's attitude is a very good description of mine:

He elaborated on this further, and although he wasn't thinking of Evolution at all when he made the following explanatory remarks, they fit this discussion perfectly.

Meaning that God wouldn't make it look like the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that we have common ancestors with the great apes, his God is not a deceptive one. Or that water consists of molecules and so on. That's a philosophical assumption, though, but one that has been discussed by theologists over the centuries as well.

I'm pleased that you and Einstein share some traits. How humble.

It is interesting that God is not to be construed as a deceptive nature to noteworthy contributors of science. I like that concept. It says that in the Bible too. Should I not take that literally? Just checkin'. It all depends on what you consider "deceit". He gives us free will to interpret things any way we wish.

I've stated at least twice that this is not a problem at all -- as long as you don't believe in the literal interpretation, there is no contradiction between faith in Genesis, for instance, and science. If not, you are governed by someone who doesn't really understand the underpinnings of science -- not good for a nation whose economy depends essentially on science.

Where is this economy bit coming from? You've gotta know that you're really just repeatedly affirming one of my initial points.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Sorry to break it to you, the evidence is overwhelming. You're an ape.

YOU obviously are.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

This is one of the best things I have read from you. Although the truth in this is extremely hard to realize in actuality. We have debated this very topic, and while I didn't read this entire thready the same people are making the same arguments that I never got answers to years ago, yet they go on spouting these as if they are fact and not just their heavily vested views.

I am probably on of the best people (who works with the ToE) to understand you point. Because of my previous deep faith and now my teachings on evolution.

p.s. I know your view, but what is funny is how we are thinking totally opposite. :-D

I appreciate the kudos, but may have missed something. How are we thinking completely opposite and what is the hard truth to realize in actuality?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I didn't have to provide evidence and yet you have already filtered it.

I have no idea what this means.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

B. ... Even though I was careful to make sure we were discussing laypeople, you'll tell me why one particular discipline happens to produce super-humans. I think this is a harder sell than you.

Super humans, huh? You've lost me, I've never said such a thing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C. I've given a perfectly reasonable explanation for why you shouldn't try so hard to reconcile faith with science.

No, you actually haven't. You understand neither (religious) faith nor science properly.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It makes no sense to listen to a bunch of blow-hards go at it back and forth when both parties have only a cursory understanding of their own disciplines, let alone the disciplines they feel they should be at odds with. Both parties would do well to avail themselves of more information first. To deny this is silly IMO. After all, you're a member here too.

Again, that's the whole point, I'm not at odds with religion in general. For me, religion and science coexist side by side. Is this is hard to understand for you? Just because you have problem reconciling faith with science (see point C.) doesn't mean everybody else does.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, I don't teach evolution. Why are you railing on me?

I'm saying that your attitude towards science in general is symptomatic for the bigger problem, exactly because you are of the opinion that `you shouldn't try too hard to reconcile faith and science.' The pseudo-scientific controversy is a symptom of that problem, too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I have no idea what this means.

You're not paying attention. You've avoided every question I posed to you.

No, you actually haven't. You understand neither (religious) faith nor science properly.

I haven't a clue how you're arriving at this. This is the first time I've heard this. Do you have some examples of where I lack understanding of either? My attitude?

Again, that's the whole point, I'm not at odds with religion in general. For me, religion and science coexist side by side. Is this is hard to understand for you? Just because you have problem reconciling faith with science (see point C.) doesn't mean everybody else does.

I don't have a problem reconciling science with faith. I've advised those with only a cursory understanding of both to not even try 'til they do. Is this so hard to understand?

I'm saying that your attitude towards science in general is symptomatic for the bigger problem, exactly because you are of the opinion that `you shouldn't try too hard to reconcile faith and science.' The pseudo-scientific controversy is a symptom of that problem, too.

What pseudo-scientific controversy and how have I given thrust to any alternate theories? You want so badly to compartmentalize me and frame this issue from your perspective that you've set up an arbitrary contrarian viewpoint and now insist on arguing against that. I've really said nothing objectionable at all. The fact that you insist on arguing is only proof of my original point. Thanks again.

The fact of the matter is that there are an awful lot of Christians believing they're hearing conflicting messages. For example; "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day" Genesis goes on to explain each day. God created all in 6 days, such and such lived to be x years old, and had x number of children, etc... Then, we have to argue was it literally 6 days? Was it six thousand years ago? Maybe each day was a million years. Two million years. Less than one billion years. Uh-oh, current understanding through science has now upped the age of the earth to 4.5 billion years. The Bible changes again. Okay, God did it, but it's likely the day/age theory holds. Uh-oh, that doesn't match the geological record, etc... If the Bible is seemingly clear and science clearly contradicts this notion, then we must have a non-literal Bible. Except, when do we not take it literally? Maybe the figure of Jesus was just an allegory. Maybe any supernatural account given in Scripture is just an allegory to show you how powerful God could have been. My point is to learn more about the views, the arguments, and the data behind those giving the conflicting accounts. There's no reason to fear it. Feeling obligated to reconcile the two is not necessary and leads to the divisive attitude you're talking about. Simply accept both as they are. One changes as evidence affords it, the other is an account of man's relationship with God and generally does not change neither is it a scientific text that needs reconciling. There's nothing in Scripture about the necessity of reconciling your faith with science. Argumentative people abound. You can't control or manipulate their perspectives.

[OreoCookie]

Except for some claims that I'm `filtering' (and I still would like to know in detail what that means), I haven't seen any questions I've dodged.

You ask why I'm `singling out you' and why I'm talking about Evolution? Well, Evolution is in the title of this thread and an example as to why some people think that science and faith have to be at odds (at least for laymen). The fact that you have `advised those with only a cursory understanding of both to not even try 'til they do' is a clear example. You don't have to be an astro physicist to know that there are black holes. You don't have to be a cardio-thoracic surgeon to know what a heart attack is. Or a priest to know about faith. Laymen can understand it without being an expert in either field.

So in the end you ask whether all this is `so hard to understand?' Of course I understand what you're saying, it's that I happen to disagree with it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There's nothing in Scripture about the necessity of reconciling your faith with science.

You ask why this reconciliation is necessary. Well, if you look at it historically, only after the emancipation of man from church (!) in the realm of science, humanity has blossomed culturally, scientifically and economically. Those cultures who haven't (have a look at the Middle East), they are still in the relative stone ages (without oil, they'd be no different than most of Africa). Reconciliation of faith (!) and science among the general populous is the basis of modern society. If this basis erodes, we will slip back in our development a few hundred years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

My point is to learn more about the views, the arguments, and the data behind those giving the conflicting accounts. There's no reason to fear it. Feeling obligated to reconcile the two is not necessary and leads to the divisive attitude you're talking about.

[Emphasis mine.]
No, your attitude is divisive, because you sow distrust between faith and science as if they belong to mutually exclusive categories. You see divisiveness and conflict when there is actually none. I don't feel obligated to `reconcile to two' (on a personal level), because there hasn't been a conflict in the first place! You treat generally accepted scientific theories as if propagated by `people with an agenda'. That's the good point about science: you have evidence for or against theories. This evidence stands independently of people. If your first reaction towards something is to find out more about `the views, the arguments, and the data' of the person, means that you focus on people and not scientific evidence.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Is the Islamic view of creation amenable to an evolutionist view?

Adam and Eve are part of the islamic religion and mentioned in the Quran, just like the six-day creation (though not as detailed told as in the Genesis-account) is mentioned in it, as well as the Noah, Moses and Lot-Stories... so the question I stated touches the very basis of my faith. It's a painful podering, but it has to be made.

The best way to go about it is: a) to find out how the scripture was meant and b) to find out how reliable the scientific methods of age-determination are.

I would like to discuss point b) first.

What methods are there, how do they work and how reliable are they?

Taliesin

[Uncle Skeleton]

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I am curious yellow.

For all god believers. What does he do all day? And what is heaven like? Why would some angels say I've had enough, leave and form there own club? Were they tired of god wanting to be constantly worshipped?

I'm serious about this.

So no one wants to take a crack at this?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

So no one wants to take a crack at this?

Well, I couldn't find the routine from Bedazzled that I wanted, so you get this quote instead:

"I lost Mussolini that way, all that work, then right at the end with his last breath he says, 'Scusi. Mille regretti,' and up he goes!"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Except for some claims that I'm `filtering' (and I still would like to know in detail what that means), I haven't seen any questions I've dodged.

Go back to the second to last post of mine and look for those instances where I've included question marks. I'm saying laypeople will filter evidence through presupposition. It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

You ask why I'm `singling out you' and why I'm talking about Evolution?

I'm not asking why you're singling me out on this issue. I only asked this as a direct response to your notion that it's my fault evolution is not being taught well enough. I'd be more inclined to tell you that too many science educators do not understand evolution well enough. The field has acknowledged this problem and is working towards correcting it.

Well, Evolution is in the title of this thread and an example as to why some people think that science and faith have to be at odds (at least for laymen). The fact that you have `advised those with only a cursory understanding of both to not even try 'til they do' is a clear example.

The reason it becomes divisive is because people from two contrarian views and lacking knowledge of both continue talking past one another until it becomes an argumentative mess. Why? Because they are more opinionated than informed.

You don't have to be an astro physicist to know that there are black holes.

No, but it'd help you understand exactly what one is. After all, someone may attempt to tell you these are portals to new civilizations. Knowing there are black holes would not qualify you to argue that these are portals to new civilizations.

You don't have to be a cardio-thoracic surgeon to know what a heart attack is. Or a priest to know about faith. Laymen can understand it without being an expert in either field.

They may be qualified to understand and even discuss aspects of each, not necessarily qualified to argue them. If you pay closer attention to what I'm saying, I'm saying the best way to reconcile the two is by not feeling obligated to reconcile the two. They are two entirely different disciplines. It is like reconciling a square peg with a round hole.

You ask why this reconciliation is necessary. Well, if you look at it historically, only after the emancipation of man from church (!) in the realm of science, humanity has blossomed culturally, scientifically and economically. Those cultures who haven't (have a look at the Middle East), they are still in the relative stone ages (without oil, they'd be no different than most of Africa). Reconciliation of faith (!) and science among the general populous is the basis of modern society. If this basis erodes, we will slip back in our development a few hundred years.

A great many Muslims may be quick to give you a list of their achievements and contributions to the field of science. "Emancipation of man from church in the realm of science!" ? Really? So... this emancipation did not happen to begin with a fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christian did it? Maybe you should clarify your point with some information. I'd be curious to see exactly what you're talking about. In some respects humanity has blossomed culturally, in other respects it has not. You make an awful lot of assumptions. There are many economic policies proposed in this country today for example that is in fact a throw-back to the failed ideas of the past. This interest has nothing to do with scientific progress. Our emancipation from a monarchy likewise had little to do with science in the traditional sense.

No, your attitude is divisive, because you sow distrust between faith and science as if they belong to mutually exclusive categories.

Let me shore this up as succinctly as I can. You claim that there is no problem reconciling Scripture with science as long as you don't take Scripture literally. That was easy wasn't it? As long as we interpret the doctrines of our faith as you see fit, no problem right? This is both audacious and naive of human nature. Worse, you do not provide information on when one is actually allowed to take Scripture literally. Only when it is seemingly in conflict with science. So... Scripture just changes as science removes aspects of it?

You see divisiveness and conflict when there is actually none. I don't feel obligated to `reconcile to two' (on a personal level), because there hasn't been a conflict in the first place! You treat generally accepted scientific theories as if propagated by `people with an agenda'.

We'll stop here because I've not even come near suggesting anything of the sort. I've even clarified for our readership that I perfectly well accept the Theory of Evolution. I did so precisely because I knew I'd encounter simpleton, knee-jerk zealotry in need of compartmentalization.

You are part of the problem, not the solution my friend. If you listen to what I'm saying, there would be no conflict and it doesn't require that anyone abandon or change their currently held views.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

So no one wants to take a crack at this?

There's really nothing to take a crack at. For all I know, God is busy creating new civilizations we can't communicate with because of red tape and political differences.

You look at your boss in the morning and think to yourself; why is he doing that? I would've done it this way. Why is everyone worried what he thinks, what he's doing, and how he feels? I have the books, the payroll, a secretary, the trust of hundreds of our employees... why do they not respect me as they do him? I'm going to leverage the trust of these employees and start my owned damned company!

[design219]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

So no one wants to take a crack at this?

Reminds me of a line from a Talking Heads song... "Heaven is a place, where nothing, nothing ever happens."

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the link. That is a very good summary of the development of the methods to determine the age of the earth. The relevant passages are:

Early calculations: physicists, geologists and biologists

In 1862, the physicist William Thomson (who later became Lord Kelvin) of Glasgow published calculations that fixed the age of the Earth at between 24 million and 400 million years.[6][7] He assumed that the Earth had been created as a completely molten ball of rock, and determined the amount of time it took for the ball to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for the ongoing heat source in the form of radioactive decay, which was unknown at the time.

Geologists had trouble accepting such a short age for the Earth. Biologists could accept that the Earth might have a finite age, but even 100 million years seemed much too short to be plausible. Charles Darwin, who had studied Lyell's work, had proposed his theory of the evolution of organisms by natural selection, a process whose combination of random heritable variation and cumulative selection implies great expanses of time. Even 400 million years did not seem long enough.

In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate, Thomas H. Huxley, attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions. The German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz (in 1856) and the Canadian astronomer Simon Newcomb (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate: they independently calculated the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born.[7] Their values were consistent with Thomson's calculations. However, they assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction. The process of solar nuclear fusion was not yet known to science.

Other scientists backed up Thomson's figures as well. Charles Darwin's son, the astronomer George H. Darwin of the University of Cambridge, proposed that the Earth and Moon had broken apart in their early days when they were both molten. He calculated the amount of time it would have taken for tidal friction to give the Earth its current 24-hour day. His value of 56 million years added additional evidence that Thomson was on the right track.[7]

In 1899 and 1900, John Joly of the University of Dublin calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.[7]

Here it shows very well how in earlier times the age was determined: a)by assuming that the earth was created as a completely molten ball of rock and trying to determine the amount of time it took to cool down to our present temperatures, b) by trying to determine the time it took for the sun to have condensed down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was supposedly born, c) by assuming that the earth and moon broke apart in their early days when they were both molten and calculating the amount of time it would have taken for tidal friction to give the Earth its current 24-hour day and d) by determing the time it must have taken the oceans to have accumulated the salt-levels they have from erosion processes...

The results of these calculations varied, but they at least arrived in the same league of about 18-400 millions of years.

Of course then radioactivity was unknown, so:

Radioactivity would introduce another factor in the calculation. In 1896, the French chemist A. Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity. In 1898, two other French researchers, Marie and Pierre Curie, discovered the radioactive elements polonium and radium. In 1903 Pierre Curie and his associate Albert Laborde announced that radium produces enough heat to melt its own weight in ice in less than an hour.

Geologists quickly realized that the discovery of radioactivity upset the assumptions on which most calculations of the age of the Earth were based. These calculations assumed that the Earth and Sun had been created at some time in the past and had been steadily cooling since that time. Radioactivity provided a process that generated heat. George Darwin and Joly were the first to point this out, also in 1903.[9]

There was the issue of whether the Earth contained enough radioactive material to significantly affect its rate of cooling. In 1901 two German schoolteachers, Julius Elster and Hans F. Geitel, had detected radioactivity in the air and then in the soil. Other investigators found it in rainwater, snow, and groundwater. Robert J. Strutt of Imperial College, London, found traces of radium in many rock samples, and concluded that the Earth contained more than enough radioactive material to keep it warm for a long, long time.

...

Soddy and Sir William Ramsay, then at University College in London, had just determined the rate at which radium produces alpha particles, and Rutherford proposed that he could determine the age of a rock sample by measuring its concentration of helium. He dated a rock in his possession to an age of 40 million years by this technique. Rutherford wrote,

I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye, and cock a baleful glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said, 'Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the earth, provided no new source was discovered. That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium!' Behold! the old boy beamed upon me.[10]

Rutherford assumed that the rate of decay of radium as determined by Ramsay and Soddy was accurate, and that helium did not escape from the sample over time. Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step.

Boltwood focused on the end products of decay series. In 1905, he suggested that lead was the final stable product of the decay of radium. It was already known that radium was an intermediate product of the decay of uranium. Rutherford joined in, outlining a decay process in which radium emitted five alpha particles through various intermediate products to end up with lead, and speculated that the radium-lead decay chain could be used to date rock samples. Boltwood did the legwork, and by the end of 1905 had provided dates for 26 separate rock samples, ranging from 92 to 570 million years. He did not publish these results, which was fortunate because they were flawed by measurement errors and poor estimates of the half-life of radium. Boltwood refined his work and finally published the results in 1907.[3]

Boltwood's paper pointed out that samples taken from comparable layers of strata had similar lead-to-uranium ratios, and that samples from older layers had a higher proportion of lead, except where there was evidence that lead had leached out of the sample. However, his studies were flawed by the fact that the decay series of thorium was not understood, which led to incorrect results for samples that contained both uranium and thorium. However, his calculations were far more accurate than any that had been performed to that time. Refinements in the technique would later give ages for Boltwood's 26 samples of 250 million to 1.3 billion years.

...

However, Strutt's student Arthur Holmes became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old.[11] These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed.

More important, in 1913 research was published showing that elements generally exist in multiple variants with different masses, or "isotopes". In the 1930s, isotopes would be shown to have nuclei with differing numbers of the neutral particles known as "neutrons". In that same year, other research was published establishing the rules for radioactive decay, allowing more precise identification of decay series.

Many geologists felt these new discoveries made radiometric dating so complicated as to be worthless. Holmes felt that they gave him tools to improve his techniques, and he plodded ahead with his research, publishing before and after the First World War. His work was generally ignored until the 1920s, though in 1917 Joseph Barrell, a professor of geology at Yale, redrew geological history as it was understood at the time to conform to Holmes's findings in radiometric dating. Barrell's research determined that the layers of strata had not all been laid down at the same rate, and so current rates of geological change could not be used to provide accurate timelines of the history of the Earth.

Holmes's persistence finally began to pay off in 1921, when the speakers at the yearly meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science came to a rough consensus that the Earth was a few billion years old, and that radiometric dating was credible. Holmes published The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.[12] No great push to embrace radiometric dating followed, however, and the die-hards in the geological community stubbornly resisted. They had never cared for attempts by physicists to intrude in their domain, and had successfully ignored them so far. The growing weight of evidence finally tilted the balance in 1931, when the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences finally decided to resolve the question of the age of the Earth by appointing a committee to investigate. Holmes, being one of the few people on Earth who was trained in radiometric dating techniques, was a committee member, and in fact wrote most of the final report.[12]

The report concluded that radioactive dating was the only reliable means of pinning down geological time scales. Questions of bias were deflected by the great and exacting detail of the report. It described the methods used, the care with which measurements were made, and their error bars and limitations.

So, despite the resistance of geologists, the physicists have proven that the radioactive dating-method were the only reliable mean to determine geological time scales.

Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.

Possible contamination problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation; leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination. Hundreds to thousands of measurements are done daily with excellent precision and accurate results. Even so, research continues to refine and improve radiometric dating to this day.

...

The moon, as another extraterrestrial body which has not undergone plate tectonics and which has no atmosphere, provides quite precise age dates from the samples returned from the Apollo missions. Rocks returned from the moon have been dated at a maximum of around 4.4 and 4.5 billion years old. Martian meteorites which have landed upon the Earth, have also been dated to around 4.5 billion years old by lead-lead dating.

Altogether the concordance of age dates of both the earliest terrestrial lead reservoirs and all other reservoirs within the solar system found to date are used to support the hypothesis that the Earth and the rest of the solar system formed at around 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago.

At least one can say that the sun-system or the universe is at least 4.5 billion years old, if one assumes that the radioactive decay-rate is not widely different in different times.

Assuming that the decay-rate and its law were not changing in history:

That would mean that the religious young-earth-proponents, that claim that the earth is at the most 10,000 years old, are probably wrong.

So that would mean that either the genealogy from Adam to Joseph as described in the Genesis-chapter are wrong, or that the six days of the creation in Genesis 1-2, in which Adam/Eve are mentioned in the last two of which, can not be the literal 24hrs-days.

If one wants to keep the genealogy-account between Adam/Eve and Joseph as correct, the first four days of creation have to be at least 4.5 billions of years, while the last two days of creation have to be at the most a few years, since between Adam/Eve and Joseph lie only a few thousands years.

The question that remains is, can the radioactive-decay-method be used to decide if the order of the creation as described in Genesis 1 is correct or wrong, regardless if the days are 24hrs or billions of years?

Taliesin

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A great many Muslims may be quick to give you a list of their achievements and contributions to the field of science. "Emancipation of man from church in the realm of science!" ? Really? So... this emancipation did not happen to begin with a fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christian did it? Maybe you should clarify your point with some information. I'd be curious to see exactly what you're talking about.

No, this is not aimed at Christians in particular, but a feature of all major religions. 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). This process has started in the Renaissance, and has continued through the Age of Enlightenment (Aufklärung) up until today. Scientific progress and distribution of knowledge (i. e. printing of books plus the ability of the general populous to read) were crucial.

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

To give you a positive example, have a look at Japan after sakoku (self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world). The Japanese population had a relatively high rate of literacy which helped distribute texts on farming for instance (Japan has comparatively little arable land). In 1868, the literacy rate was estimated to be about 40 % (including the population on the countryside!). Being literate is the basis of scientific progress. So within essentially 30, 35 years, Japan caught up with the Western worlds and established its dominance in Asia. Mind you, there was resistance to the adoption of `Western science', because traditionalists were concerned that this would destroy the minds and hearts of the Japanese. It's really always the same pattern.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Our emancipation from a monarchy likewise had little to do with science in the traditional sense.

Yes, it has had a lot to do with it.
The ability to read and write is the basis of scientific work and without it, I dare say, democracy is simply instable.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me shore this up as succinctly as I can. You claim that there is no problem reconciling Scripture with science as long as you don't take Scripture literally. That was easy wasn't it? As long as we interpret the doctrines of our faith as you see fit, no problem right? This is both audacious and naive of human nature. Worse, you do not provide information on when one is actually allowed to take Scripture literally. Only when it is seemingly in conflict with science. So... Scripture just changes as science removes aspects of it?

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

[OreoCookie]

@Talesin
Of course, there are some assumptions `hidden' in that. For instance that the physical laws that govern our universe do not change over time. Or that the half life of these substances does not change (appreciably) over time.

But the importance is that several different dating methods lead to comparable results, so you're never bound to the validity of just one method. The more (independent) ways a theory has been affirmed, the more solid it is. The other part is called `Occam's Razor' (an English monk): if there are two equivalent theories that make the same predictions, you should prefer the one that has less assumptions. This is not just an `aesthetic' criterion, it's the general direction of scientific progress: to derive more complicated effective laws (e. g. laws of thermodynamics) from simpler laws (here: Newton's laws of motion or quantum mechanics).
So if we assume for the moment that the earth is just 10k years old, we need some way to explain fossils, for instance. Or the results of dating methods. Essentially, you have to make lots of extra assumptions and don't have systematic ways to explain other facts/results of experiments.
It's much cleaner if you assume instead that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. That doesn't imply that it's true, but that's what we predict with our current scientific knowledge based on the data we have. Once new data becomes available, we might change that number, but so far, this is the best we can do.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why would some angels say I've had enough, leave and form there own club? Were they tired of god wanting to be constantly worshipped?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That story isn't in the Bible. It's from the non-canonical Book of Enoch. It was very popular during the Second Temple period, and the early Christians probably believed in it.

I believe some people interpret Revelation 12:3-4 as describing fallen angels. "And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . "

Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Fallen angel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Talesin
Of course, there are some assumptions `hidden' in that. For instance that the physical laws that govern our universe do not change over time. Or that the half life of these substances does not change (appreciably) over time.

While we're at it, there's also the assumption that humans in antiquity had similar biological properties to modern humans. Didn't Noah live for 900 some years in the Bible? And it never really says that those years were also 365 days or that those days were the same length as our days. There are always assumptions (usually assumptions that things we see today that are constant have always been constant), but frankly from a scientific perspective we have to work with those assumptions or else there would never be any way to learn anything. We just have to keep in mind that all scientific conclusions (yes, all of them) are tentative and depend on those assumptions.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ridiculous notions deserve ridicule. If you tell me the world is flat, I'm gonna make fun of you.

Why? That person's observations have merit. From that person's perspective, the world is flat. I'd only start making fun of them if they didn't change their opinion after insurmountable evidence is provided. There's nothing wrong in coming to the wrong conclusion provided it wasn't biased.

Irony is amusing. A religious person making fun of other people because of "ridiculous notions." Religion by its very nature is a ridiculous notion.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Welcome to Arkansas.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Talesin
Of course, there are some assumptions `hidden' in that. For instance that the physical laws that govern our universe do not change over time. Or that the half life of these substances does not change (appreciably) over time.

But the importance is that several different dating methods lead to comparable results, so you're never bound to the validity of just one method..

Yes, I know, from what I could gather there are up to fourty different radioacivity-dating-methods, and while they don't all achieve the exact same result, they all come to the result of about the league of 4.5 billion years for the oldest rocks.

So, when one assumes that reality is fixed and not changing ( for example that the reality doesn't change according to the results the majority of truth-seekers expect to find) and that the laws we find in nature to have been constant since the beginning, then:

That would mean that the religious young-earth-proponents, that claim that the earth is at the most 10,000 years old, are wrong.

So that would mean that either the genealogy from Adam to Joseph as described in the Genesis-chapter are wrong, or that the six days of the creation in Genesis 1-2, in which Adam/Eve are mentioned in the last two of which, can not be the literal 24hrs-days.

If one wants to keep the genealogy-account between Adam/Eve and Joseph as correct, the first four days of creation have to be at least 4.5 billions of years, while the last two days of creation have to be at the most a few years, since between Adam/Eve and Joseph lie only a few thousands years.

The question that remains is, can the radioactive-decay-method be used to decide if the order of the creation as described in Genesis 1 is correct or wrong, regardless if the days are 24hrs or billions of years?

Taliesin

[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?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why? That person's observations have merit. From that person's perspective, the world is flat. I'd only start making fun of them if they didn't change their opinion after insurmountable evidence is provided. There's nothing wrong in coming to the wrong conclusion provided it wasn't biased.

I completely agree. However, the insurmountable evidence for evolution and the round earth was provided long ago.

Irony is amusing. A religious person making fun of other people because of "ridiculous notions." Religion by its very nature is a ridiculous notion.

I essentially agree, since I'm an atheist. However, I don't ridicule people who agree to "live and let live," like the Amish. But when someone decides to drag religion into the political arena, the gloves come off.

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

I believe some people interpret Revelation 12:3-4 as describing fallen angels. "And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . "

That interpretation would be incorrect. The dragon was Rome, and the tale here is entirely allegorical.

Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Yeah, you're right, Jude is referencing the Book of Enoch here, which the early Christians believed was holy scripture. Jude was almost excluded from the canon because of these kind of references. The Jews did eventually cut Enoch from their canon, probably because it wasn't originally written in Hebrew, and the Christian Church followed suit.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I miss unicorns

[design219]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I miss unicorns

They can be trouble. YouTube - Charlie The Unicorn