PDA

View Full Version : What are the problems with your theory?



Twonky
01-22-02, 12:27 PM
Creationists/Evolutionists -

I think another thing to be aware of during a debate is the weaknesses of your argument. Certainly there are things the creationist and evolutionist can't answer, and I would suspect that they know what those are.

Play devil's advocate for your belief and ask the tough questions you can't answer yet. This should be relatively simple for those interested in complete truth and not just their belief.

For example, if you're a Bible believing YEC, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to an old earth. How would a YEC reconcile this other than the standard 'the dating method is flawed' argument?

smugg
01-22-02, 06:08 PM
Is there something that makes you think science doesn't know there are questions it can't answer yet?

Isn't the topic at hand the questions science has answered?

I know you've been led to believe differently, but scientists accept the theories they accept because the evidence led them there. There are areas where what research has been done hasn't led to much in the way of answers. This is well known and accepted. While science would like to answer every question, nobody who's looked into it would be foolish enough to say we're even close. Does this somehow mean that what research has been done can't be used yet?

Twonky
01-22-02, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by smugg
Is there something that makes you think science doesn't know there are questions it can't answer yet?

Not sure what you're getting at here? The purpose of my new post is to get from both sides the weaknesses of their arguments? I'm completely aware that both sides have questions yet to be answered. The point was to find out what those questions are as they relate to the debate in question.


Isn't the topic at hand the questions science has answered?

No. The topic I just started was the questions science hasn't answered yet as it relates to the evolution/creation debate.


I know you've been led to believe differently, but scientists accept the theories they accept because the evidence led them there.

Hmmm... How do you 'know' I've been led this way?


There are areas where what research has been done hasn't led to much in the way of answers. This is well known and accepted.

I know. The whole point of my new post was to see if each side is aware of the questions that haven't been answered.


While science would like to answer every question, nobody who's looked into it would be foolish enough to say we're even close. Does this somehow mean that what research has been done can't be used yet?

No it doesn't mean that and in no way am I suggesting that it does. I would however suggest that this is completely off the topic of what I was asking.

Let me see if I can rephrase it:

We all know there are a lot of questions yet to be answered in the great debate of creation/evolution.

I am simply asking the creationist to play devil's advocate for their position and post questions they can't seem to reconcile and asking the evolutionist to do the same on their position.

Does that make more sense?

smugg
01-23-02, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Twonky
Not sure what you're getting at here? The purpose of my new post is to get from both sides the weaknesses of their arguments? I'm completely aware that both sides have questions yet to be answered. The point was to find out what those questions are as they relate to the debate in question.

No. The topic I just started was the questions science hasn't answered yet as it relates to the evolution/creation debate.


Hmmm... How do you 'know' I've been led this way?

You're right, it was an unfair thing to write. I'm sorry.


I know. The whole point of my new post was to see if each side is aware of the questions that haven't been answered.

No it doesn't mean that and in no way am I suggesting that it does. I would however suggest that this is completely off the topic of what I was asking.

Let me see if I can rephrase it:

We all know there are a lot of questions yet to be answered in the great debate of creation/evolution.

I am simply asking the creationist to play devil's advocate for their position and post questions they can't seem to reconcile and asking the evolutionist to do the same on their position.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, I think I understand it better. I'm having trouble answering, though, because I just don't see much of it as problems for evolutionary theory -- insofar as it goes, evolution has proven to be accurate. Even though I'm a complete amateur, I'll take a crack at it:


Steady change or Punctuated Equilibrium? Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) was put forth by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain the appearance of species in the fossil record. As I understand it, the idea is that changing environmental pressures cause life forms to undergo rapid change after a long period of stability -- which is then followed by another long period of stability. While this does a nice job of explaining the appearance of the fossil record, it is not necessarily predicted by Darwin's theory of evolution.

This brings us to my second point:

Holes in the fossil record. It's completely unavoidable: not everything which lived on the earth can leave remains after it dies. There will always be gaps. If this weren't true, would the fossil record still support a PE model?

and...

Time. Large changes (or <shudder> macroevolution) are very difficult to observe because of the time scale on which they take place. It appears life has been present and changing on our planet for billions of years and we've been studying the changes seriously for something like only 150 years. There's probably much to learn from just more observation. It doesn't help that the human life span is tiny on this kind of scale.


That's what comes to me right away. If I can think of more I'll post them later.

Cephas
01-25-02, 08:04 PM
Holes in the fossil record. It's completely unavoidable: not everything which lived on the earth can leave remains after it dies. There will always be gaps. If this weren't true, would the fossil record still support a PE model?

But yet, you want every 'I' dotted when it comes to explaining God's revealation. Your faith astounds me.

smugg
01-25-02, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Cephas


But yet, you want every 'I' dotted when it comes to explaining God's revealation. Your faith astounds me.

Care to be more specific, or are you just getting some exercise jumping to conclusions?

Look, the original topic of this thread was a request that each of us look at the account we accept and talk about that. There are plenty of other threads where you can bash science and revel in your straw-man presentation of my views.

I am interested in where Twonky intends for this thread to go. It's been a while now and there is a conspicuous absence of Creationist input -- other than this opportunistic shot at my post.

Twonky
01-25-02, 08:35 PM
I'm looking for things like this from creationists.

Distribution of animals from the ark
If all the animals were on the ark, how did koala bears get to Austrailia and nowhere else? How did other animals make it over the oceans to their respective place?

How did carnivores survive without wiping out herbivores?
Wouldn't the lions and other meat eaters have eaten all the herbivores before they had a chance to repopluate the earth?

Cephas
01-25-02, 09:27 PM
Look, the original topic of this thread was a request that each of us look at the account we accept and talk about that. There are plenty of other threads where you can bash science and revel in your straw-man presentation of my views.
Well, that is exactly what I am asking you to do. You seem to so easliy dismiss some whole in a therory with a pacth work explaination of ‘not everything which lived on the earth can leave remains after it dies.’ How can I debate you on this point if you accuse me of building a straw man?

Twonky
01-25-02, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Cephas
How can I debate you on this point if you accuse me of building a straw man?

You can start by beginning a new thread.

This thread isn't for debating the points, it's just for saying what the points are.

I'm just trying to get to the real questions we should be asking on both sides.

Cephas
01-26-02, 09:01 AM
This thread isn't for debating the points, it's just for saying what the points are.

I missed that in your first post. My apologies to you and smugg.

From a Evolutionary point of view:
I have difficulty with chemicals coming together to form life by mere chance and then being complex enough to evolve.
How does evolution account for a caterpillar metamophosizing into a butterfly? Or, any winged creature.
A siders web
How does the venus fly trap know there are flys to catch? It seems like it was designed to do that.
From a Creationist point of view:
Why do bats or moles have eyes? It seems like the eyes have lost their function through evolution.
Snakes seem to have the remnants of a hind leg. Some snakes even have claws!
I have seen people that actually look like gorillas!
Dinosaur fossils seem to dismiss the young earth therory.

GRANTM
01-26-02, 12:55 PM
Hi guys, up until now I have followed but stayed away from posting, because my beliefs , would only convolute ideals, as although a creationist, I am not a Christian.

But the mention, of the "Great Flood" I have pondered, there is scientific evidence that a great Food did take place, in that area of the word, mid east. but i am very skeptical that it encompassed the whole world. that would explain the lack of bio-diversity when that region is compared with other areas, mostnotably Bhutan,and would explain why there is such an abundance of oil beneath the crust. for to have oil deposits, implys, a rich and abundant life form. Just something to ponder
upon.

Debbiek
01-26-02, 07:38 PM
Watch Sky Angels' "Creation Network" & see scientists who are Christians prove that the earth is 6,000 yrs old & prove a global flood happened, etc. AN atheist uses atheist scientists, I believe they don't stand a chance against a Christian scientist or geologist. Some of the scientists even convert to Christianity after being debunked.

countrymouse
01-28-02, 07:31 AM
OK, I'll bite! I take a creationist position, in that I firmly believe God did create the universe.

However, I do see some problems with interpreting the creation material in Genesis in a literal manner, as though it's "newsprint narrative."

For instance, if we are 100% literalistic about the creation material, we have to defend not only a young earth and special creation of each species, we also have to retreat to the position that the material universe is geocentric after all. Sorry 'bout that, Gallileo! The RCC must have been right, after all!

And then there are those 24-hour days, and division between day and night, preceding God's creation of the sun.

Could it be that the creation literature is not a science lesson, but a kingdom lesson???

Debbiek
02-12-02, 11:37 AM
I don't see the problem with Genesis being taken literally. In the Nt Jesus quoted scripture from Genesis as it were literal. There are Christian geologists who can account for the earth being 6000 yrs old and the rest of it. It can be proven by Christians with degrees in science, geology, etc. An atheist scientist has a different view but why should a Christian take the word of an atheist over a Christian who also has degrees? Evolution, big bang, etc doesnt hold up scientifically, but God's Word can be proven & has been by scientists.

countrymouse
02-12-02, 12:00 PM
Except...

What about Galileo? The RCC forced him to recant or face excommunication (and maybe death, but I can't remember) over what? They were upset because Galileo discovered (actually, cofirmed earlier theory) that the earth revolves around the sun, and he had the unmitigated gall to make his discovery public! Why did that bother the church? Because a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 absolutely opposes what Galileo confirmed.

Try sitting down and drawing a picture of the universe the way Genesis 1 represents it when read literally. Can you still tell me that science has proven it to be true?

In fact, no respectable scientist will ever claim to have proven anything, only to have added to the body of evidence for or against a theory.

Blessings,
cm

Debbiek
02-12-02, 02:26 PM
You have to get the satellite system "Sky Angel" it's a Christian satellite system. They have a show called "creation" that will convince you through scientific evidence, by degreed professionals with proof even concerning the speed of light. It's only $10. a month for 35 CHristian channels.

countrymouse
02-12-02, 03:02 PM
But Debbie...!

Are you telling me that you believe the sun revolves around the earth?

Debbiek
02-12-02, 03:07 PM
Give me a Bible verse when you have time.

countrymouse
02-12-02, 03:40 PM
NAS Genesis 1:6-8
6. Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The Hebrew word for "heaven" in verse 8 (as well as throughout Genesis) primarily means "sky," and is translated both ways.


NAS Genesis 1:14-19
14. Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; {He made} the stars also.
17. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18. and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

It's important to remember that when Moses wrote all this down for the people, they had no concept of a huge expanse of space dotted with stars as big as the sun, or even that they lived on a moving ball of rock, rather than on a flat expanse. Moses didn't know, either; if he had told them they wouldn't have believed him. (Shucks, they had enough trouble with what he did tell them).


NAS Amos 9:6
6. The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,

NAS Joshua 10:13
13. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go {down} for about a whole day.

Even late into Old Testament history, the physical concept of heaven was of a dome in which the sun, moon, and stars moved over a stationary earth.


Then there's just the nature of the literature itself, which is revelatory. It sets the pattern for prophetic symbolism throughout the rest of the Bible!


There are plenty of believers who do not agree with this, and I'm not offended by that. But those are some of the reasons behind the way I see the creation material in Genesis.

Blessings,
cm

Debbiek
02-12-02, 04:09 PM
I read it in the KJV. I couldnt find anything in Genesis & when I read what you quoted from genesis I still see nothing that contradicts science.
As for the Amos quote, a chamber is usually vaulted. That doesn't deny science.
NOw the statement in Joshua is different it is "implying" that the earth was stopped at a certain point. BUt it doesnt say that. Even the BMV sets the law for turning on our headlights as "30 minutes before sun down". well it's common saying "sunrise" sun set". we dont correct everyone when they say it. maybe i will start. lol.
so joshua didnt know How the earth revolved around the sun, but when he told the sun not to move from his sight, it didnt.
God answered his prayer by stopping the earth. And no one fell off. What happened to gravity? Maybe, God made the sun follow Joshua.

smugg
02-12-02, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Debbiek
I read it in the KJV. I couldnt find anything in Genesis & when I read what you quoted from genesis I still see nothing that contradicts science.

There is no evidence for heaven being a crystal layer of firmament separating the "waters from the waters" which God opened windows in to let the flood waters through. I think that was the specific example countrymouse was emphasizing.


As for the Amos quote, a chamber is usually vaulted. That doesn't deny science.

A chamber may be vaulted but our universe isn't. The picture given in the Old Testament is of small lights (not the huge nuclear reactors we know stars to be) pasted to the firmament which was a dome over the flat earth. If this doesn't deny what we know today I can't imagine what does.


NOw the statement in Joshua is different it is "implying" that the earth was stopped at a certain point. BUt it doesnt say that. Even the BMV sets the law for turning on our headlights as "30 minutes before sun down". well it's common saying "sunrise" sun set". we dont correct everyone when they say it. maybe i will start. lol.
so joshua didnt know How the earth revolved around the sun, but when he told the sun not to move from his sight, it didnt.
God answered his prayer by stopping the earth. And no one fell off. What happened to gravity? Maybe, God made the sun follow Joshua.

Oh, you agree that the Bible isn't literal, too. I'm not a bit surprised, really -- the literal truth of the Bible is a completely untenable position. I just don't always understand why people choose to believe some parts while they have no trouble understanding that some of it is just symbolic or poetic.

I mean, what if Paul was just "implying" that Jesus rose from the dead (like so many other gods) but it wasn't a literal event?

Where do you stop accepting a symbolic interpretation and start believing a literal one?

By the way, gravity is what holds us to the surface of our planet and not its rotation. If the earth were to stop rotating it would be cataclysmic for us on the surface, but the gravity wouldn't stop. We'd still be bound to the ground even as the sun baked one hemisphere and the other half froze.

countrymouse
02-12-02, 07:59 PM
Thank you, Smugg!

Debbie, there are other problems as well. If we take Genesis 1 literally, God separated darkness from light and there were 24-hour days before God created the sun. Can you square that with science?

Remember, I'm not making fun of the Genesis literature; I'm proposing that it is revelatory, and sets the precedence for prophectic symbolism. Neither am I denying that God created the physical universe, but I am saying that the Genesis creation material was not written to tell us how he did that. The processes are discoverable by science, apart from creation ex nihilo, which falls under the disciplines of theology and philosophy.

Just think about it,
cm

Smoking Yogi
10-16-02, 10:03 PM
First I want to distinguish between scientists (those that love science and the scientific method) and those that have a firm belief and use "evidence" to try to prove their point. Not that it matters to most "believers" but the guys who think that the universe (earth) is only 6 thousand years old are considered quacks by their contemporaries. 6,000 years is a figure for pop-up books and cereal boxes. The evidence does not point to it at all in fact the new scientific creationism (the big bang) is also being disporven as I write because observation is showing that the universe is older than we can possibly imagine. To make the world 6000 years old means that God has been hard at work creating a completely and elaborate lie for anyone with the patience and learning to seek new discoveries.

Just watch the dinosaur guy on TBN. If you were in elementary school, then this might seem worthwhile, but scared people who want to see something there can just edit their evidence to match. It's called soft science. I could probably devise a set of test that would prove conclusively that you were a grasshopper. Of course you wouldhave all sorts of problems with my logic and my methods since you are obviously a human being, but nevertheless I could conclude based on my "evidence" that you are in fact a grasshopper. When a non-believer says "science" we mean actual science not cultic, hyperbolic reasoning.

I will try to address these questions:

="From a Evolutionary point of view:

* I have difficulty with chemicals coming together to form life by mere chance and then being complex enough to evolve."==

So do a lot of people....that's why they call it a theory. We are talking about huge amounts of time.

=="* How does evolution account for a caterpillar metamophosizing into a butterfly? Or, any winged creature.
* A siders web
* How does the venus fly trap know there are flys to catch? It seems like it was designed to do that."==

It was "designed" to do that through millions of years of trial and error. Life moves and grows into any crack and cranny that it can find.

==" From a Creationist point of view:

* Why do bats or moles have eyes? It seems like the eyes have lost their function through evolution."==

We see many examples of this phenomenon including our own appendix.

=="* Snakes seem to have the remnants of a hind leg. Some snakes even have claws!"==

There is every "between" species that you can imagine. My wife keeps lizards from the back yard and they barely use their limbs and slither more then walk.

==" * I have seen people that actually look like gorillas!"==

Some people are still gorillas!!!!

=="* Dinosaur fossils seem to dismiss the young earth therory."==

Among many, many other things. While no one can rule out some multi-dimensional magical being who goes around creating universes (because it is beyond conception) it should be your last possibiltiy to explore in the face of the given reality.

Our ability to "see" into space with radio telescopes and the repaired hubble have been smashing beliefs about the origins (and age) of te universe. Even amoung scientists though, there is a termendous resistance...because like belief, the scientist have dedicated years of their lives to write or explain esoteric theories to explain or accompany the big bang. Saying it can;'t be possible now would mean a tremendous amount of sacrifice.

We must all make the sacrifice.

MyLoveJesus
11-06-02, 06:26 PM
I hope you can bear with me... I'm going into a philosophic mode :D

The earth was created out of something, since something cannot be created out of nothing. I believe it was created by God's word, but many people may not.

So we have the earth. On the earth are living beings. I believe them to be created by God, again by His word, but many do not.

So we have the earth and living beings (people, animals (some think people are animals), and plants, etc.

And with these beings are principles to their existence. Gravity is just a principle that no one discovered. It was there before someone figured out that things fall down. Someone just discovered it one day and slapped a name on it.

People labelled (or "theorized") almost every principle on the earth. Evolution is the biggest label for those who really believe human beings developed over time from microorganisms. Now, remember. People can be in error and what is really there can be misunderstood.

Those who thought the world was flat laughed at Copernicus when he discovered that they were all wrong! That caused a revolution.

Scientifically speaking, before the earth, what was there? And if the world is millions of years old, how can a dating machine made in one lifetime ever be proven as accurate when taking into account the length of time the earth has been around? I see no accuracy in a dating machine. It's accuracy cannot be proven!

Whoever believes that because someone dated a rock by a man made theory, which is always flawed, is not basing his/her beliefs on anything substantial!

God's explanation is more concrete than anything man can come up with.

Jesusislove
11-10-02, 08:39 AM
If you are in philosophical mode, then you won't mind my extensive critism of your last few statements.



The earth was created out of something, since something cannot be created out of nothing. I believe it was created by God's word, but many people may not.

Most creationists believe that the earth did come from nothing...and was spontaneously created by God. If this "satisfies" the question for you, then thats that. The earth is composed of materials that were around for inconceivable amounts of time. In eternity.. "where" something came from is a moot point. Everything is obviously moving around and changing constantly in the universe.

Saying something is created by the word of a god can mean so many different things. I could say it was made by "Dagmar" the little red elf...and as long as I don't elaborate, who can "prove" me wrong.


Those who thought the world was flat laughed at Copernicus when he discovered that they were all wrong! That caused a revolution.

I don't think you know which side of the table you're on here. Copernicus told the world that the eath was not the center of the universe and that it actually revolved around the sun (which was also in motion)...this was the new heliocentric model outlined in his book, "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies" which he published on his death bed. Why on death bed? Because if he had published it sooner, then church would have killed him.

It was the Chruch that "believed" that the earth was the center of the universe and they killed and burned many people through the centuries as heretics to keep it that way. The idea that everything was created by a god is not revolutionary, in fact it is the oldest theory ever esposed by man.


Scientifically speaking, before the earth, what was there? And if the world is millions of years old, how can a dating machine made in one lifetime ever be proven as accurate when taking into account the length of time the earth has been around? I see no accuracy in a dating machine. It's accuracy cannot be proven!

You mean before the earth formed, or before time began...I don't know what you are asking. There was stuff for the earth to form from. You need to read some books.

Do you not know anything about discovering the age of materials? They don't have some "dating machine" they put it in and it spits out a number at random. Carbon dating and other methods track the radioactive decay of certain particles to get a rough estimation as to how long something has been in existence. Because some elements have half lifes of 25,000 years and more, it is very possible to look back further than a lifetime.

There is an immense amount of evidence that points to the earth being very old and the universe being so old, it is pointless to talk about it. I could go on, but I don't know where to start...you should do some research in this direction.

Just as the church needed the earth to be the center of the universe in the days of Copernicus, the church today has a couple of ideas that it is not willing to part with. At the very least know some more details about the things you don't want to "believe" in before you argue against them.

MyLoveJesus
11-10-02, 02:53 PM
I would like to thank you, JesusIsLove, for your opinions. I appreciate all different points of view. And, yes, I was in error with Copernicus. Thank you for clearing that up.

You have taken some of the things I have said the wrong way, but I have no hard feelings. We all have opinions.

I take it from what you have said that you do believe the world is older than 6000 years. Many Christians, or people who refer to themselves as such, believe that. I do not. Just as people believe there is evidence for the world being millions of years old, there are people who believe there is evidence for the world being only 6000 years old. Like I said before, all these beliefs are based on man-made theories, which are automatically open to a margin of error.

I really can't say that from what you have said that I see you as a follower of Jesus. Please don't take this a criticism because Christians are not supposed to criticise (we are supposed to build up not tear down). I have no hard feelings towards you, but I think there may have been a better way to say what you are trying to say. I don't know what that way is, but I took what you said to be very critical and, in a sense, harsh. I know you may not have been trying to come across as such.

Remeber, if you advertise as being a follower of the Lord, always remember whether He is being properly represented. If He is not, then don't advertise. God bless you.

Jesusislove
11-13-02, 05:11 PM
I understood where you were coming from.

I was detailed on the Compernicus business because you were invoking his name and circumstance as kind of indiret support what you believe.....he was revolutionary and bible literalists are revolutionary.

This is topsy turvey as I explained. There is nothing revolutionary about taking the creation stories in the bible literally. There is also no way for me to convience you otherwise, to spite monumentous evidence pointing to a world that is far older than 6000 years. This is important and has direct bearing on yourself and your personal experiences (world view).

No one is coming down on you. If you are going to discuss things philosophically then you have to be prepared to butress your ideas and explain yourself without getting offended. Turning on me and saying I am not a Christian is the opposite of debate. You are not the one to judge who is a follower of Christ and who is not. I think Christ himself would have a few choice words for his church if he were alive (embodied) today. Christ was a revolutionary and deeply disturbed the church of his day before they killed him too.

I have no hard feelings for you. I enjoy the debate as a convention and as meaningful conversation. Philosophy is about shoring up your ideas, testing them, applying them in principle to meaningful and sometimes practical circumstances in order to show its validity. But I am typing and not speaking so being direct is a requirement if I don't want to write a term paper everytime.

One point I must make, though it has been made before by others, is that you don't "believe" in science the same way that you "believe" in religion or theological cosmology. Science is about testing and is directly related to our common reality of hands, minds, and materials (condition). Science builds on itself and achieves things like going to the moon, micorwave ovens, etc. If I read or look at some scientific data about deep space, of course there is a measure trust in the devices and the people that built them, but not believeing in them does not change them at all. If you don't believe in microwave ovens, they still operate just fine.

Literal Creationism requires faith that goes against common sense and overwhelming scientific knowledge. The "evidence" of the world being 6000 years old is shotty at best. I have heard a lot of it. But you must understand, for the average scientist's (not counting for corruption) motivation is towards truth and discovery. A cardinal sin in science is to twist the truth to meet your own claims about one thing or another. The dinosaur man on TBN is the textbook example of this. He shames his degrees with unscientific leaps and bounds. Perhaps you are told that there is just as much evidence for both ideas but it is simply not true. The dinosaur man and those like him are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

At the risk of appearing harsh, I recommend that if the subject of the origins of the universe is interesting to you that you look into it. The worst thing you can do is adopt the "anything man does is unholy" additude or the idea that knowledge and the use of your mind is inferior to faith. Discover these things for yourself if they are there to be discovered. Do not be turned against your own heart and your own reasoning...if what you believe is true then it will wait for you.

But in the realm of philosophy, you cannot result to "the bible said it". This is not an argument, it is the ending of arguements as you curl in on yourself. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty where the universe came from (if that is even an applicable question) or how long it has been around, but telling myself that it just came from the word of God doesn't go anywhere. You must elaborate if you are able. Having a degree of mistrust in knowledge and in mind in general is a healthy thing...but where is your degree of mistrust for what your elders tell you and what the church tells you the bible means? Ultimately you yourself must be the measure and test of what is "right" and what is true...distrust it all....but find out for yourself.

MyLoveJesus
11-13-02, 07:02 PM
Hey Jesusislove. I'm sorry about that.

I've avoided philosophy my entire life for the reason that I really am not much of a debater. But this semester I got stuck taking a philosophy class called the Nature of Self. I can't say I enjoy it much, but I went out on a limb by responding to this thread in the first place.

I'm still new to my faith, not yet 3 years, so this class is also teaching me how not to take things offensively or defensively... and I guess I'm still learning. I'm a very simple minded person, so philosophy to me is a little over my head.

I can tell your older and wiser than I (I'm 21). And I thank you for setting a good example for me.

God bless you.

Jesusislove
11-13-02, 08:04 PM
I am only 29. Philosohpy classes can be a drag because most professors are original thinkers and most are acedemics, so it is hard for them to energize the ideas that they have been teaching for so long.

Debate is only part of it. One should be able even if just conversation to talk about how they think, feel, and perceive.

Enquiry is the only route to realization. You must be able to ask questions and develop your own standards of discrimination (in consciousness).

Philosohpy is often high minded esoteric babble so it is hard to make it connect right off the bat. If you don't "get it" right away, I wouldn't be concerned...just trust honest inquiry and your paths will cross again. There are few "new" ideas...the great thinkers of the past have covered a lot of ground.

If Jesus (the Siddha of sacrifice) is drawing your love and attention, then have honesty inquiry about him and the church that sprang up after his passing.

But most importantly ask questions of yourself. What are you? What is consciousness? What is awareness? Who is asking the questions?

Too many Christians fear that to agree with or even understanding science is contrary to their beliefs. This is extremely myopic and shortsighted and prevents your faith (in abstracts) from blossoming into a higher relationship with reality. I see no conflicts with the bible and with my reality or my mind (and thought processes).

There are Native American cultures whos creation myths involve the world coming out of "the great egg". I also do not see a conflict. Creation mythology (in all cultures) were created in a time and in a mindset that did not have access to the broader scope of knowledge available to even the common citizen of today. This does not make them devoid of meaning, quite the contrary...that is why they are called "myth" and not fairytales.

If you are a true lover of knowledge and wisdom, then do as Solomon did and pray to God, that strip you of everything else if necessary but to bless you with true inquiry and wisdom no matter what the price.