Worldviews

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Please read through completely before commenting...and enjoy

There is no historical proof that accompanies this rumor that God vs. Science is a chain e-mail created by someone who didn't know Einstein, but insisted that he wrote it (in hopes of gathering credibility for his points). The chain e-mail itself isn't bad, but it's obvious where the bias exists, and it's even more obvious that Einstein not only wasn't the student mentioned, but also had nothing to do with with a book called "God vs. Science" written in 1921.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Albert...#ixzz1mHk2ADvn

Now, let's see Einstien's real views on religion.

His letter denoucing evangelicals for using his name to support religion. To quote from it:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. .

The above letter is in German, which I read, and the transcript is accurate.

And here is a scanned copy of his actual letter saying "from his view, the believe of a personal God is a childlike one".

Your attempt at providing a "proof" fails.

Just in case you need further evidence, Snopes also debunks your myth.

I know you WANT to believe Einstein said this, but WANTING to believe in something doesn't make it true, even if someone wrote it, right?

Sort of like a bible.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

That is not a credible statement at all. Mithra, Horus, Dionysus, Krishna, and Buddha all pre-dated the NT by hundreds if not thousands of years.

The NT is just another in a long line of similar tales.

Quit looking for the literal interpretation; look for the spiritual one, the metaphorical one, the allegorical one.... that will be the real truth, and it correlates with all of the previous ones. The others were understood that way, and no one confused viewed them as a literal interpretation.

What do you mean not credible? People knew God and the promised Redeemer way before it happened.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...corns-in-bible

About the whales; functional not taxonomic. Remember? This is about observational science.

OK, then tell me what the observationalists would tell us about the platypus?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

No it wasn't missed I was still going over it. From what I understand this verse is referring to a count that applies to the Levi, who came into being as a result of the Exodus. It may have something to do with Exodus in 12:29. Numbers 3:13 God claims all the first born to be His. I'm questioning if there is a time frame here, in that any child before the month would not have been included in the PassOver?...don't quote me please, I'm working on this one. In any case I can use other verses if you would like to show that age is not an issue in respect to the importance of the age of a child or life to God.

At least we agree that there are difficult passages

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

What do you mean not credible? People knew God and the promised Redeemer way before it happened.

They had a spiritual need that was met through metaphorical and allegorical tales. They never needed to try and understand them literally, which is what some Christians are attempting to do with the bible.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by avb3

They had a spiritual need that was met through metaphorical and allegorical tales. They never needed to try and understand them literally, which is what some Christians are attempting to do with the bible.

that's the problem, if you look to the bible as a spiritual guide for your life that's fine, if you try and convince me that 1 man built a boat large enough for all the animals in the world to get on, and then there was a world wide flood that lasted 40 days when every scientist knows there is as much water on the earth today than there has ever been, then we are gonna have a problem,great spiritual guide not a great history book.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yes, especially telling is the last few sentences:

Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn’t be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life’s mystery instead of blaming it all on God.

That's just arguing the future. "Oh we haven't invented a way to access the wrinkles in space and time, but we will!"

[jryley]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Hey eastcoast, let's play the 'what if' game scenario a little further: You say, "what if they find a cure for cancer in stem cells? would the death of a few fetuses be worth saving millions of lives?" Let's also look at it this way: what if the cure for cancer really was in one of those fetuses - but it would have required that fetus to be born, grow up, study and become a research scientist who discovers a cure for cancer? But that fetus was aborted, killed, and that ended that chance before it even had a living chance. And now millions of people had to suffer with cancer and millions of lives that person could have saved are lost?

Another 'what if' scenario: if I understand it correctly, in the theory of evolution for one thing to become something else, it requires a process wherein something triggers a change. If that process is random and not orchestrated (for it to be orchestrated would require an intelligent 'orchistrator' - and we don't want to go there because that might lead to calling that orchistrator "god"), then suppose that trigger change for the evolutionary advancement of the human race just happens to be in a particular fetus that is conceived one day ------ but fetus' mom doesn't want the fetus. She doesn't want to be pregnant. It was an 'accident'. So she aborts the fetus. No harm done - right? Except that now that evolutionary trigger is gone! And the evolutionary advancement of the human race stalls, or worse, begins to regress leading to the extinction of our species.
Isn't that also part of the theory of evolution - that when evolutionary advancement stops a species begins a journey to eventual extinction?

lol this entire statement....is the biggest pile of you know what ive ever read.

Making claims that abortions could in theory, add to the demise of the human race, lol, is the exact garbage that paints every religious group as a cult. You let your own brains be poisoned by what is frankly, 100% unthruths, and you continue the cycle by spitting an spewing lies to others. It just makes me laugh at the "follower" mentality you prove to show.

[Tactical Lever]

A little evidence that the Bible does not exclude science:http://www.philstar.com/article.aspx?articleid=471362.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

that's the problem, if you look to the bible as a spiritual guide for your life that's fine, if you try and convince me that 1 man built a boat large enough for all the animals in the world to get on, and then there was a world wide flood that lasted 40 days when every scientist knows there is as much water on the earth today than there has ever been, then we are gonna have a problem,great spiritual guide not a great history book.

Really?! The earth's surface is 2/3s covered in water with the oceans averaging over 2.5 miles deep. Wanna rethink what would happen with a little topological reformation?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Really?! The earth's surface is 2/3s covered in water with some of it 2 miles deep. Wanna rethink what would happen with a little topological reformation?

there is no more water on earth now than there has ever been, it's a fairy tail don't take it literally.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

A little evidence that the Bible does not exclude science:http://www.philstar.com/article.aspx?articleid=471362.

Acts 15, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem laid out what they taught should be required of non-Jews from the Law of Moses.

The laws specifying unclean animals was not part of what they said was required. Several times Paul wrote about how it was not even wrong to eat meat that had been offered to idols.

They were not to eat critters that were strangled or not properly drained of blood, but otherwise, basically Paul says, have at 'er.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Really?! The earth's surface is 2/3s covered in water with the oceans averaging over 2.5 miles deep. Wanna rethink what would happen with a little topological reformation?

Even accepting your premise, let's go back to your source book.. it said it rained for 40 days and nights, it didn't say the earth sunk where there was land and rose where there was ocean, did it?

Besides, rain is fresh water. The oceans are salt. How did all the little fishies that needed salt water survive, or conversely, all the little fishies that needed fresh water?

A miracle? Not mentioned in your source book.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

there is no more water on earth now than there has ever been, it's a fairy tail don't take it literally.

Well ok, since you said so. Also the ark did not have to fit all the animals on it, only 2 of every kind; excluding aquatic animals and birds. Also does not specify adult animals. Sounds like an impossible feat, but it's not. Look at some of the architecture from old testament days. This is something we could not accomplish today.

BTW the earth's surface would be massively changed by a sudden influx or drainage of huge amounts of water.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

Acts 15, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem laid out what they taught should be required of non-Jews from the Law of Moses.

The laws specifying unclean animals was not part of what they said was required. Several times Paul wrote about how it was not even wrong to eat meat that had been offered to idols.

They were not to eat critters that were strangled or not properly drained of blood, but otherwise, basically Paul says, have at 'er.

The parts I was referring to was in Genesis. When I first thought of it I was actually referencing the awareness of microbes of guarding of health through hand washing and drinking from running water.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

Even accepting your premise, let's go back to your source book.. it said it rained for 40 days and nights, it didn't say the earth sunk where there was land and rose where there was ocean, did it?

Besides, rain is fresh water. The oceans are salt. How did all the little fishies that needed salt water survive, or conversely, all the little fishies that needed fresh water?

A miracle? Not mentioned in your source book.

Actually it does mention where it goes. Here:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...loodwater.html.

I'm not too sure about the salt content, but a fairly large amount could have been gained from the large scale of displaced land.

I will have to look into the fishies deal....

[Tactical Lever]

Just a few questions for the analytical folk:

How did the dinosaurs stay on the planet all those years ago?

Why was the "lunar lander" built with such large feet and why weren't they needed when Buzz and Armstrong landed?

Define Cro-Magnon man.

Why does a giraffe exist?

^^^^^^

These are not super tough questions. They do require some biological knowledge however as well as some planetary information and a smattering of physics light specifically dealing with the angular momentum of the earth over the ages and how it would theoretically influence the doppler effect.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

There is no historical proof that accompanies this rumor that God vs. Science is a chain e-mail created by someone who didn't know Einstein, but insisted that he wrote it (in hopes of gathering credibility for his points). The chain e-mail itself isn't bad, but it's obvious where the bias exists, and it's even more obvious that Einstein not only wasn't the student mentioned, but also had nothing to do with with a book called "God vs. Science" written in 1921.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Albert...#ixzz1mHk2ADvn

Now, let's see Einstien's real views on religion.

His letter denoucing evangelicals for using his name to support religion. To quote from it:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. .

The above letter is in German, which I read, and the transcript is accurate.

And here is a scanned copy of his actual letter saying "from his view, the believe of a personal God is a childlike one".

Your attempt at providing a "proof" fails.

Just in case you need further evidence, Snopes also debunks your myth.

I know you WANT to believe Einstein said this, but WANTING to believe in something doesn't make it true, even if someone wrote it, right?

Sort of like a bible.

I apologize for not removing Albert Einstein's name from that quick, but fun article I posted. I read it and found it amusing. I am aware of Einstein's position on prayer; Purpose in Nature; Meaning of Life; the Soul; and a Personal God from excerpts taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side. No intent to distract I just found it to be quite amazing. I be certain to remove his name from that article. Thanks for letting me know

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by avb3

Even accepting your premise, let's go back to your source book.. it said it rained for 40 days and nights, it didn't say the earth sunk where there was land and rose where there was ocean, did it?

Besides, rain is fresh water. The oceans are salt. How did all the little fishies that needed salt water survive, or conversely, all the little fishies that needed fresh water?

A miracle? Not mentioned in your source book.

never mind the snails that live in the amazon forest whose whole ,life span is 2 weeks, they must have swam across the south atlantic ocean, made their way to the middle east, gotten on the arc, sailed around the world for 40 days, then I guess gotten back off and swam home back to brazil, seem rediculous?

[Tactical Lever]

Every kind, just like the Book says. Doesn't mean every colour and pretty shell pattern.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Just a few questions for the analytical folk:

How did the dinosaurs stay on the planet all those years ago?

Gravity. Same reason nothing else floats away into space.

Why was the "lunar lander" built with such large feet and why weren't they needed when Buzz and Armstrong landed?

IIRC, it was because they did not know the thickness or granularity of the lunar dust in the target landing area. Seems like a cautious thing to do.

Define Cro-Magnon man.

Wikipedia has extensive and referenced discussions on this.

Of interest is:

A 2003 sequencing on the mitochondrial DNA of two Cro-Magnons (23,000-year-old Paglicci 52 and 24,720-year-old Paglicci 12) identified the mtDNA as Haplogroup N.[24] Haplogroup N is found among modern populations of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, and represent the northern branch of the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans. Its descendant haplogroups are found among modern North African, Eurasian, Polynesian and Native American populations.[52]

Why does a giraffe exist?

Necroposy of a giraffe, with your favorite atheist you love to hate, Dawkins, asking questions, can be viewed on this National Geographic video.

Quite fascinating... if there was intelligent design, why is the nerve discussed take the route it does?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

I apologize for not removing Albert Einstein's name from that quick, but fun article I posted. I read it and found it amusing. I am aware of Einstein's position on prayer; Purpose in Nature; Meaning of Life; the Soul; and a Personal God from excerpts taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side. No intent to distract I just found it to be quite amazing. I be certain to remove his name from that article. Thanks for letting me know

No offense meant, but this is the problem with blindly taking things from a rumor mill and promulgating them.

Yes, it is a cute story, but, in the end, it's a story.

[Arachnodisiac]

Why am I not surprised that after leaving this thread for several days, I have returned to find it debating whether or not two of every species currently known to man could have fit on a large boat?

(Also, there are approximately 2000 tarantula species alone, which would have meant Noah was tending to 4000 individual tarantulas. Can you imagine representing each insect species?)

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Why am I not surprised that after leaving this thread for several days, I have returned to find it debating whether or not two of every species currently known to man could have fit on a large boat?

(Also, there are approximately 2000 tarantula species alone, which would have meant Noah was tending to 4000 individual tarantulas. Can you imagine representing each insect species?)

And the biomass those insects would represent?

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by avb3

And the biomass those insects would represent?

Biomass? It would be incredible.

And forgive me, I don't have the same bible knowledge as some of you, but the animals on the ark were vegetarian, right? Because the flood happened before Eve took the apple into her mouth?

I cannot speak to every species, but it would be physically impossible for a spider to be anything else than a carnivore. (Snakes too, actually.)

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Biomass? It would be incredible.

And forgive me, I don't have the same bible knowledge as some of you, but the animals on the ark were vegetarian, right? Because the flood happened before Eve took the apple into her mouth?

I cannot speak to every species, but it would be physically impossible for a spider to be anything else than a carnivore. (Snakes too, actually.)

noah's arc is just low hanging fruit (pardon the pun) of an argument against the literal interpretation of the bible, it's easy to defeat in many ways.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Biomass? It would be incredible.

And forgive me, I don't have the same bible knowledge as some of you, but the animals on the ark were vegetarian, right? Because the flood happened before Eve took the apple into her mouth?

I cannot speak to every species, but it would be physically impossible for a spider to be anything else than a carnivore. (Snakes too, actually.)

No, the root of man's sin was Eve, and as a result, as things got worse and worse, God gave up, said, P!ss on it... your all gonna die by drowning.

Yeah, the lion's must of enjoyed their stay next to all that yummy food

[cover]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Why am I not surprised that after leaving this thread for several days, I have returned to find it debating whether or not two of every species currently known to man could have fit on a large boat?

(Also, there are approximately 2000 tarantula species alone, which would have meant Noah was tending to 4000 individual tarantulas. Can you imagine representing each insect species?)

Or the 20 000 known species in the oceans ?

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

noah's arc is just low hanging fruit (pardon the pun) of an argument against the literal interpretation of the bible, it's easy to defeat in many ways.

But is it not so, that some do believe it literally?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

But is it not so, that some do believe it literally?

Some??? A ton of evangelicals and born agains do.

It just amazes me that otherwise intelligent people relegate themselves to manuscripts that were describing esoteric events in a metaphorical manner, and taking them as literal.

That just fails in so many ways, but I guess if your faith teaches and dictates that is the case, and you have that faith, discussions like this will not change those minds.

I honestly think that if a Christian is looking for spiritual growth, they would get a lot more out of their bible if they looked at spiritual messages, rather then the literal.

That ain't gonna happen any time soon.