Originally posted by whodey
Give him a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. It is another view of Genesis that may not insult his fundamentalist view point. In it, he concedes that the earth is billions of years old and also concedes the likelyhood of evolution.

I have that book too, "Genesis and the Big Bang" but have not read it
yet.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have that book too, "Genesis and the Big Bang" but have not read it
yet.
Kelly

I highly recommend it. He not only gives his scientific view of how Genesis fits the findings of modern science, he also goes back and studies ancient rabbinical writings that discuss what Genesis was actually saying that also mirror findings in modern science. For example, the rabbis concluded that mankind had been slowly created over time and when God had achieved the physical perfection of man over the millinea, he breathed his spirit into him. In addition, they did not think the universe was created in 6 literal days. Bear in mind, these rabbinical conclusions were arrived at from only the study of Genesis in the Hebrew langauge and long before the advent of modern science. Their conclusions were arrived at from their expertise in translating the Hebrew language only.

Originally posted by whodey
I highly recommend it. He not only gives his scientific view of how Genesis fits the findings of modern science, he also goes back and studies ancient rabbinical writings that discuss what Genesis was actually saying that also mirror findings in modern science. For example, the rabbis concluded that mankind had been slowly created over time and when God had ...[text shortened]... Their conclusions were arrived at from their expertise in translating the Hebrew language only.

If things are thought up, and there are no straight evidence in the Genisis, then it must to be considered extrapolations, and nothing more, if you are kind. If you are not that kind it my be labeled as pure fantasies.

"the rabbis concluded that mankind had been slowly created over time and when God had achieved the physical perfection of man over the millinea, he breathed his spirit into him."
Where can we read this in the Genisis? Nowhere? Then what conclusion can we draw from this?

Originally posted by FabianFnas


"the rabbis concluded that mankind had been slowly created over time and when God had achieved the physical perfection of man over the millinea, he breathed his spirit into him."
Where can we read this in the Genisis? Nowhere? Then what conclusion can we draw from this?

That rabbis don't treat Genesis as a strait-jacket.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That rabbis don't treat Genesis as a strait-jacket.

Do you mean that they dismiss the Genisis, or just some parts that doesn't fit in to their thought up theories?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you mean that they dismiss the Genisis, or just some parts that doesn't fit in to their thought up theories?

Neither, you simple-minded buffoon.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Neither, you simple-minded buffoon.

You don't have to be rude.

So if neither then what? Is it possible to think up something just from thin air?

Originally posted by KellyJay
People use unproven theories all the time to make their case for
their foundational world views. Logic either allows for some of the
statements made or it doesn't, evidence it seems is the universe
we live in and who does the better job of painting it such a way to
make their case for their theories; however, in doing so we run the
risk of painting a p ...[text shortened]... that actually does not fit reality
as much as it does the world view between our ears.
Kelly

that is not called science. or at most it is simply called hypothesizing. but when it comes to actually present a theory as science, one cannot use an unproven theory to support their own. i could invent a math in which 1=2 when i want it to and then using that math to demonstrate that santa clause exists. and certainly one doesn't use an unproven theory to build a machine.

you will not see a string theory car because nobody knows for sure if string theory is valid let alone its practical applications.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You don't have to be rude.

So if neither then what? Is it possible to think up something just from thin air?

I can't help it; you have this terrible power over me.

The answer to your question is hermeneutics. But there's a lot of reading involved that isn't scientific at all; I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be interested. So, just keep on trolling in the free world!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I can't help it; you have this terrible power over me.

The answer to your question is hermeneutics. But there's a lot of reading involved that isn't scientific at all; I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be interested. So, just keep on trolling in the free world!

I'm sorry for having such a power over you, it's really not my intention.

So what the rabbis are thinking up is no more than interpretations? And alternative interpretations are equally probable?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the one who uses facts and not fairy tales to support a material position.

i am a religious person, i believe in god and jesus. but if i were to enter a scientific debate with an atheist regarding the scientific proof of god's existence i would lose. because i don't have proofs. i only have belief. and science only deals with hard facts. it has no use for unproven theories because their result cannot be used further.

So you believe in the fairy tale that a man 2000 years ago rose from the dead.

I fail to see how someone who believes in the resurrection of Christ can claim to be more logical than a YEC. Both beliefs contradict every day science to such a large degree that there are only two reasonable positions:
1. The events were miracles (anomalies) and a contradiction with science cannot be taken as evidence of falsehood.
2. The events did not take place.

I find 1. to be reasonable if you have good reasons for believing that God exists and that he violates the normal rules of the universe from time to time. However I think that those reasons must be extremely strong ones as the evidence that no such violations take place is extremely strong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you believe in the fairy tale that a man 2000 years ago rose from the dead.

I fail to see how someone who believes in the resurrection of Christ can claim to be more logical than a YEC. Both beliefs contradict every day science to such a large degree that there are only two reasonable positions:
1. The events were miracles (anomalies) and a contrad ...[text shortened]... be extremely strong ones as the evidence that no such violations take place is extremely strong.

people have risen from the dead by unexplained methods. recently a group of scientist made the zombie dog(drained all his blood, froze him and resurrected him three days later)
so no it is not entirely unreasonable.

now why do i think i am more logical than a YEC? i do not claim to be making science. i believe in jesus (Praise Jesus) but i don't gamble all of my economies on that fact. i know i am in the faith business and as long as it doesn't interfere with real life it is no harm. i will never make a "God powered car" whereas YEC's want to teach their stupidity in schools and not only that but to remove evolution as "questionable science".

Don't you dare compare me with those retards. It's one thing to have a certain moral system and spirituality and another to impose your faith on others as hard facts, nazi style.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I'm sorry for having such a power over you, it's really not my intention.

So what the rabbis are thinking up is no more than interpretations? And alternative interpretations are equally probable?

While texts have many uses -- as doorstops, missiles or food for sphinxes -- usually one interprets them, yes.

I'm going to send you a badge that says 'Religion is Stupied'. Wear it with pride.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
While texts have many uses -- as doorstops, missiles or food for sphinxes -- usually one interprets them, yes.

I'm going to send you a badge that says 'Religion is Stupied'. Wear it with pride.

did you noticed that he answered 2 times in a polite manner to your abuse? who is the troll here?

how about you start debating and stop boring us? or just go away?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
did you noticed that he answered 2 times in a polite manner to your abuse? who is the troll here?

how about you start debating and stop boring us? or just go away?

Being rude isn't sufficient to qualify one as a troll. Some of the most vicious trolls are perfect gentlemen.

I don't object to your boring drivel. Then again, you're harmless.