Creation-ists view vs Science

[Alan]

I suppose then, my contention is what people do with those words. I have a very good example but it works best if you agree with the view that the King James VI translation of the Bible is about as accurate a translation as you can get (i.e. it wasn't a translation of a translation).

At the turn of the century, still in Victorian times, do-gooder types (sorry I can't find a better description) preached that you should love your neighbour as you love yourself and that anyone and everyone was your neighbour. One of the principal parables used to support this was the parable of the Good Samaritan and if you look at any modern Bible, it refers to the Good Samaritan.

Nowhere in older Bibles, - and the King James version, does it say "Good" - it is simply the parable of the Samaritan. When I attended Sunday School, (although the King James Bible was used), I was taught this story under the banner of the "Good" Samaritan. My point: adding the word "Good" which wasn't in the original translation, totally destroys the point of the parable.

Jesus said love your neighbour as you love yourself and the lawyer (was it Nicodemus) asked Jesus "Who then, is my neighbour?" and Jesus gave the parable of the Samaritan.

The difference is, that we are taught that this "good" Samaritan, because he was good, was an unusual example of his race, they all being nasty people.

But, Jesus was talking to people of his time and they were traditional Jews. The Samaritans were also Jews but had some specific religious beliefs which "orthodox" Jews couldn't stomach and this put Samaritans beyond the pale. That point isn't explained to us in the 21st century. If Jesus was talking to Belfast loyalists, it would be the parable of the Roman Catholic.

In other words Jesus was saying that your neighbour was the person who did good unto you, regardless of who he was, in relation to you. He wasn't saying love everybody, even the bad guys, he was saying your neighbour was where kindness was given or received.

You will probably disagree with my opinion above, but you cannot deny that the addition of the word "Good" skews the story and was added by man for man's purposes. One of them is wrong, one is not Holy Writ, the Bible isn't always accurate.

[eldren]

The difference is, that we are taught that this "good" Samaritan, because he was good, was an unusual example of his race, they all being nasty people.

But, Jesus was talking to people of his time and they were traditional Jews. The Samaritans were also Jews but had some specific religious beliefs which "orthodox" Jews couldn't stomach and this put Samaritans beyond the pale. That point isn't explained to us in the 21st century. If Jesus was talking to Belfast loyalists, it would be the parable of the Roman Catholic.

In other words Jesus was saying that your neighbour was the person who did good unto you, regardless of who he was, in relation to you. He wasn't saying love everybody, even the bad guys, he was saying your neighbour was where kindness was given or received.

You will probably disagree with my opinion above, but you cannot deny that the addition of the word "Good" skews the story and was added by man for man's purposes. One of them is wrong, one is not Holy Writ, the Bible isn't always accurate.

Or, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The Samaritan, even though he was hated by Jews, including this injured one, was willing to help in the Jew's time of need. That is, in essence, the meaning of the parable - do good unto, love others, even if they hate you. The addition of "good" to the Samaritan's title is merely an attempt by translators to more clearly indicate the nature of the Samaritan, whose example we should clearly follow.

[Byatt]

Days late, I'm here to poke holes in stuff.
Evolution being proven. Actually, no. Quoting mutation in bacteria is not proof. That's like saying humans are mutations in response to climate. Really? What climate prompted a sentient species? Mutations are not evolution.

I feel you dismiss this with a little too much ease. Although I agree there is no conclusive proof for evolution, and that mutation in bacteria cannot be cited as a proof, it can be cited as evidence to support the theory, which it is pretty good at.

Saying that mutations aren't evolution I feel is flimsy, since "mutations" (in whatever form) are the basis for evolution, and a productive or advantageous mutation will likely result in the distribution of the mutated genes through reproduction.

I must agree that it shouldn't be taught as fact, but I feel teaching it purely as hypothesis sans evidence leaves a little to be desired.

[Alan]

"That is, in essence, the meaning of the parable - do good unto, love others, even if they hate you."

Eldren, did you read my post? Where did you get the above from? That isn't what I said, and where does it say in the parable that the Samaritan hated the orthodox Jew. The whole point of the parable is that the orthodox Jews (Jesus' audience) hated Samaritans!! He was teaching the Jews in front of him, that even people they didn't like, could be their neighbours. You reversed my point entirely - why?

How can you get that meaning from the story which demonstrates that your neighbour is the person who would do you good?

You prove my point, that is, that adding the word "good" skewes the story. Can I take it that your silence about the use of the word "good" also goes to suggest that my post has some merit?

[eldren]

The Samaritan, even though he was hated by Jews, including this injured one, was willing to help in the Jew's time of need. Nowhere did I say that the Samaritan hated the Jew. In addition, you are twisting what the Bible says.

Luke 10:36 & 37: "Which of these three [(In the parable, the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan)] do you think was a neighbour to the man [(The injured Jew)] who fell into the hands of the robbers?" The expert in the law replied "The one [(The Samaritan)] who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

The point here is that you must be neighbourly to everyone, regardless of whether or not they do good to you. Which is basically what I said in my last post.

[Alan]

It's amazing how the same words mean different things to different people!

"That is, in essence, the meaning of the parable - do good unto, love others, even if they hate you."

I thought that, since the parable is told to Jews your meaning above refers to Samaritans hating Jews but for your last post to make sense, you must consider that the admonition in the quoted words is aimed at Samaritans and is why that particular Samaritan helped the Jew.

You are giving a reverse answer and have not attempted to address my comments directly. Why? You are giving responses like a politician - that's worrying.

I can see how you can get "love one another regardless" out of the parable but I also see my own view which is that your neighbour is someone who would do you good - with the implicit meaning that someone who would do you bad is not your neighbour and you therefore do not have to love him.

Now here is an interesting thing, I can see where your viewpoint is coming from and how you would arrive at that interpretation but I doubt you will reciprocate.

And I still would like to know why the word "Good" had to be added (invented) and the parable passed off in that way. You have made no comment on the addition of this word to what was already perfect scripture. Would it hurt you to agree that the word "good" has been added "for reasons unknown" but it does help to reinforce the interpretation of the parable in a way which you also agree with.

In fact you have blanked so much of the main points and questions of my posts that other viewers must draw their own conclusions.

[eldren]

The quoted words are not strictly for Samaritans - they are an example to all as to how they should behave toward others. I can see your point of view, but I don't agree with it - I believe the interpretation to be mistaken. The word good? I answered that several posts above. "The addition of "good" to the Samaritan's title is merely an attempt by translators to more clearly indicate the nature of the Samaritan, whose example we should clearly follow"

[Alan]

It wasn't added by the translators. The addition of the word "good" appears sometime in the late nineteenth century, not as part of a translation of the Bible. Let's simplify this. The Samaritans were not bad people, they did not carry out dreadfull deeds, they simply believed in slightly different things religion-wise. That was it.

A Quaker might see some things differently to an Anglican but it makes neither a bad person.

However, I don't seek to change your view anyway, you have given me no reason to revise my opinions (but nor have you solidified them) but it proves two things. One is that having the same language doesn't help in agreement as to meaning, and second "never argue about religion, politics, or football". Well that's the first item proved correct.

Nice arguing with you, so long.

[KraniX]

think i can put this simply...

religion = bad

[dgr]

my views fall into two categories:

1. those that i am "know" to be true
2. those that i personally beleive, though cannot prove

however the meaning of "proof" in real life is very loose - you cannot PROVE anything, simply show it to hold until a better model comes along (science is all about models).

but please, no evidence for a scientific explanation of life?

heres a few:

• special relativity and quantum mechanics (QUANTUM GRAVITY) giving a univiersal theory of forces
• the OPIOID system in the brain giving an explanation for human pleasures and therefore actions (yes i do not believe we are intelligent, yes i do beleive we are complex multi perpose organic computers)
• red shift and the cosmic background radiation (CBR) showing that the universe is expanding
• special relativity showing that observors in different inertial frames (read: different parts of the universe) exist in different time frames and therefore if a GOD looked over everyone, he would have to travel forwards and backwards in time (constantly! )

i could give you numerous other examples but to be honest, you could counter every one with the idea of a creator having created the evidence that shows them (e.g. planting fossils in the ground to make it look like dinosaurs had existed.

All i know is that i have ample evidence that explains why some people (like yourself, eldren) believe in a GOD (e.g. the subconcious requirement to feel needed, special, human).

But in the end, my oppinion on the matter is that i cannot think of a single reason why a supernatural being must be brought into play. I don't think you, me, or anyone else makes their own descissions, ask yourself the question - is there anything you have ever done that you cannot trace back to, at that moment, maximising the pleasure you are having? pleasures aren't simply the instant gratification of buying a new pc, having sex, whatever: they include the pleasure of security, financial success, emotional gratification of giving/loving.

Don't believe it is you don't want to though - you could just be doing yourself a favour. one thing i've learnt is that "ignorance is bliss" is most certainly true. Realising you have no control over your life, realising that you are not special, it all makes for quite a painfully irrelevant existance.

dgr

[dgr]

As we all know, the duration from one day to the next is 24 hours, so 7 x 24 hours creation was.

um no its not. the angular velcocity of the Earth is decreasing, days were a lot shorter a few million / billion years ago.

So why do you think that God created in the Earth in 7 X 24 hours?

[dgr]

Evolution being proven. Actually, no. Quoting mutation in bacteria is not proof. That's like saying humans are mutations in response to climate. Really? What climate prompted a sentient species? Mutations are not evolution.

I don't like the theory of evolution being referred to as "scientific." It is no more scientific than the biblical record.

Frankly, evolution is a means to deny special creation, deny the existence of God, and that is why people will cling to it, some even after being presented with proof against it. (To use the same assumption Zak used, that proof would ever come forth.)

Firstly, you assume that we are sentient. my oppinion is that we are not, though i will not try to prove it. simply state that you made a MASSIVE assumption there.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not based purely on lab accounts of mutation. Follwoing fossil records of how specie groups have split following occurances (such as the formation of a mountaib range splitting a population in half) SHOW that mutations have led to specicies evolving (survival of the fittest).

dgr

[dgr]

Not only that, but if you go into looking at the entropy of the universe and the fact that all the energy in the universe is slowly dissipating until we reach the eventual state of "heat death" of the universe, then there must have been a beginning when all the energy of the universe was in a state of 100% "order" which in itself requires a beginning. I cant see myself how that works without God either. Im not suggesting that my views of God are all necessarily correct or infallible, but its the only way the world makes sense in my head!!

You imply that the second law of thermodynamics holds for all frames of reference. Well what if it doesn't? How do you prove it?

One explanation is that of M-theory. it postulates that "our universe" began by the collision of 2 "2d-branes." not going into the detail (because only a dozen people worldwide understand it!), the result was the space-time matrix that we exist in.

[dgr]

Theory. Oh, sorry, I meant to use the word hypothesis, because that accurately describes what evolution is.

Hypothesis
The deductions made after studying an occurrence, by collecting data about the occurrence, and turning it into useful information to back up your hypothesis.

Hypothesis
A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.

Hypothesis
A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices".

Hypothesis
A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

Theory
A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices".

The dictionary seems to suggest that hypothesis ~ theory.

[dgr]

Little fact for all of you, no one knows what cuased the big bang. I dont believe in the big bang, theres too many holes in it, I see it more as a theory.

Oh yeh, anyone read about the string theory yet? So much of it makes sense, but other parts I just dont understand.

i have a fairly good knowledge of string theory, ask away if you like.

if you want a book, i would recommend "a brief history of time," "three roads to quantum gravity" and "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene".

[dgr]

I dont want to argue about who is right. Not today.

sorry for partaking in an argument that you didn't mean to occur. though i completely agree with my.

in my opinion:

CREATIONISM seeks to provide an unequivocal explanation for what we are and what our purpose is.

SCIENCE seeks to explain the physical world that we seem through models that resemble experimental data.

They are not mutually exclusive. But the former, being the word from God, cannot be changed in its message. The latter changes constantly, to give a better model of our universe (and beyond???). So whilst science inevitably concedes ground, creationism will never.

dgr