The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

hairyheretic · 12-11-2005 12:28AM

wolfsbane wrote:

The Biblical account is ancient. That doesn't prove it is true, but it is the first qualifier.

How does somethings age have an bearing on whether or not it is true?

wolfsbane wrote:

Next it is coherent, offering a non-contradictory history of Man.

Every system of belief has its own creation story (at least all the ones I'm familiar with). Since they're not all the same story, that sounds like contradiction to me.

wolfsbane wrote:

Finally, its account is consistent with the observable data around us.

Debatable. After all, its being debated right now

wolfsbane wrote:

So, No, the Bible cannot just be dismissed as another fairy-story. It is not presented as such, nor has it been regarded as such by good people over thousands of years. Its account deserves a fair hearing.

And would you extend that same courtesy to the creation stories of all other beliefs?

Asiaprod · 12-11-2005 12:44AM

Well, the guys on this list are no idiots, but they do seem sort of easy-going atheists. They are content for you to live in your little Tolkien-like fantasy, but they do object to any scientific arguments made in defense of the gospel.

Three out of four a 100% correct, but you got the last point wrong. We easy going atheists do not object to scientific arguments made in defence, we like constructive arguments, we don't like non-proven scientific facts being used as scientific proof

.

Sapien, glad to see your comments on this. I for one am very interested in your views, I am a big fan of Tolkien, but have always been troubled by what I felt were aspects of Christianity in his writting, same as CS Lewis, another great writter who troubles me. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrope was the first book I ever read and it impressed me, then I found the Hobbit was even more impressed. Another great series in this vein is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Did you read this series.

JC= Long anti-diluvian lifespans are confirmed in the Bible and also by the giant size to which reptiles grew prior to the Flood as evidenced by the fossils of certain Dinosaurs.

That one take some swallowing. This may not be quite up to your scientific standards, but could it not be possible that big Dinosaurs had big babies, that had bigger babies and so on down the line? Ooops, silly me, thats evolution is'ent it:o . And why only some species of Dinosaurs?

Sapien · 12-11-2005 04:07AM

wolfsbane wrote:

For a start, we all know the origen of "The Silmarillion". We can document its date of writing, and the fact that the author presented it as a fable rather than as history.

The Biblical account is ancient. That doesn't prove it is true, but it is the first qualifier. Next it is coherent, offering a non-contradictory history of Man.
Finally, its account is consistent with the observable data around us. This is where the debate rages - which theory of origins fits best with the physics, chemistry and biology we observe today and whose effects we examine in the material universe? Scientists differ. Arguments for Chance or Intelligent Design abound.

So, No, the Bible cannot just be dismissed as another fairy-story. It is not presented as such, nor has it been regarded as such by good people over thousands of years. Its account deserves a fair hearing.

I suggest you spend more time studying your Ainulindale and Valaquenta. Even the names provide the indisputable answer to your hectoring complaint - they are in Sindarin, the most ancient of languages surviving in this Middle Earth. This alone provides the clear provenance that these scriptures date to the Second Age at the latest - that is to say at least nine thousand years ago. Your "bible", on the other hand, purports to be less than four thousand years old, if we choose to believe it.

The "origen" (sic.) of the Silmarillion was, as I have clearly explained, an instance of divine revelation to a descendant of the Ainur, and a gift of redemption and restoration by Iluvatar to his children. This can hardly be denied by one who is truly familiar with Tolkien's writings, and honest in their interpretation of them. Which are we to believe - a text which is delivered wholesale and in pristine completeness to a messenger of the Creator, or a grubby text handed down from propagandic hand to embellishing fist through countless centuries and innumerable agendas? Please!

I am by no means an expert on the Sacred Writings of Tolkien, but I am supremely confident that you will find not one instance of incoherence or contradiction therein. If you do, I shall concede this argument instantly. And, as I have stated, the Writings are utterly in accordance with the world as we observe it today. I challenge you to find an exception.

As to any suggestions that the Sacred Writings of Tolkien are influenced by "christianity" - they are mere foolishness, which may be excused only in one who is disadvantaged in his/her understanding of the Message. Aside from that, these suggestions are syllogistically flawed. The truth, of course, is that "christianity" was influenced by a mostly subconscious awareness of the Ancient Texts, which, though outwardly forgotten, persisted in the souls of Men - a truth so profound will ring forever in the pure of heart. Though misguided and misbegotten, it is clear that some "christians" heard the call of Iluvatar, and incorporated some divine truths thusly apprehended into the otherwise perverse creed. I hope that relieves you of your misconception, Asiaprod.

If there are any serious challenges to the profound Truthfulness of the Silmarillion, I would be happy to correct them.

Asiaprod · 12-11-2005 05:11AM

Sapien wrote:

Though misguided and misbegotten, it is clear that some "christians" heard the call of Iluvatar, and incorporated some divine truths thusly apprehended into the otherwise perverse creed. I hope that relieves you of your misconception, Asiaprod.

That does indeed Sapien, thank you for englightening me. Nice choice to use Tolkien. Irrefutable evidence, one could indeed agree.

"Lambane kai heydou anathema mou"

Wibbs · 12-11-2005 10:20AM

J C wrote:

Modern Creation Science is an ultra-modern application of ‘cutting-edge’ science to the study of the resultant effects of Special Divine Creation - and it takes it’s mandate from the biblical confirmation in Rom 1:19-20 that God’s actions can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. The fact that Creation Science uses modern scientific methods in the pursuit of biblical truth is a good reason for all Christians, and other mono-theists, to support it’s endeavours – and indeed many do so.

Cutting edge science does not assume a starting point and go through hoops to try to make the evidence fit the theory, while ignoring the glaring anomalies that may disprove it. Science of any discipline should not do that. The very things you accuse the Darwinists of doing(sometimes with good reason BTW), you do far far more.

Long anti-diluvian lifespans are confirmed in the Bible and also by the giant size to which reptiles grew prior to the Flood as evidenced by the fossils of certain Dinosaurs.
Please note that reptiles are one of the few types of creature that continue to grow throughout their lives – unlike mammals or birds, for example, who stop growing when they reach their mature sizes. Very large reptiles are therefore almost invariably very old reptiles – and there are plenty of very large (and therefore very old) reptiles in the fossil record and therefore presumably killed by Noah’s Flood.

For a start, dinosaurs were unlike modern reptiles in many ways. As most would have heard, many were more akin to birds. Many were also warm blooded high metabolic rate animals which grew rapidly. The big dinosaurs you speak of had a very rapid early growth cycle which bulked them up massively(some would say as an adaptation against early predation). Looking at the growth rings in the fossilised bone one can see this rapid growth that slowed down when they got into their "teens". The really big brontosaurs and the like show this growth profile. They got to their massive size quite quickly(in as little as 20yrs) and remained around that size for the rest of their lives. T. rex it seems grew even faster, getting to it's large size under 10 yrs.

However, the ageing process greatly accelerated in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood and this is currently explained by some Creation Scientists to be, in part due, to an increase in incident solar radiation upon the Earth due to the collapse of a postulated ‘water canopy’ in the upper atmosphere that covered the entire Earth before the Flood. This ‘water canopy’ could also have maintained a ‘greenhouse effect’ and a stable warm climate all over the Earth –

Or more likely a runaway greenhouse effect.

and this could explain the presence of fossilized tropical vegetation, which has been found in the polar regions.

Plate tectonics covers that quite nicely.

Please note that all of the above is speculative and subject to active ongoing Creation Science research.

In fairness, speculative isn't in it.

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 11:29AM

HairyHeretic said:
How does somethings age have an bearing on whether or not it is true?

A new history of man, one not heard of before, would suggest it is not history at all. Credible history needs some evidence that it has been passed on from the original happening, down through the generations.

Every system of belief has its own creation story (at least all the ones I'm familiar with). Since they're not all the same story, that sounds like contradiction to me.

They surely contradict each other. What I said was the Bible account was coherent, not self-contradictory.

Finally, its account is consistent with the observable data around us. Debatable. After all, its being debated right now

Of course.

Its account deserves a fair hearing.
And would you extend that same courtesy to the creation stories of all other beliefs?

Certainly - am I not doing so with yours now?

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 11:34AM

Asiaprod said:
We easy going atheists do not object to scientific arguments made in defence, we like constructive arguments, we don't like non-proven scientific facts being used as scientific proof .

Then we share something in common - I have the same problem with evolutionary theorists.;)

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 11:48AM

Sapien

Your humourous history fails the test of authenticity. Its author and the circumstances of its writing attest to this, as I have already pointed out. The witness of Scripture has been attested to down the ages, with multitudes suffering privation and death rather than deny it.

What you use humourously to illustrate your point has however been used seriously in the foundation of various religions. The Mormons spring to mind - Joseph Smith and his golden plates. We are near enough the events to test them, to find out what the central characters actually lived like, what they taught then as compared to now. The more ancient religions are not susceptible to that sort of investigation, but must be assessed for their coherency and compatibility with certain sure facts (not theories).

Son Goku · 12-11-2005 12:43PM

EDIT: Never mind, this'll just keep going if I respond.

robindch · 12-11-2005 01:11PM

> Your humourous history fails the test of authenticity. Its
> author and the circumstances of its writing attest to this,

Completely wrong. The FIRST sentence of the foreword of the Holy Book teaches us that "The Silmarillion, now published four years after the death of its author, is an account of the Elder Days, or the First Age of the World" (p 10, HarperCollins, London 1998). This is TRUTH from the first word of The Word! Ilúvatar's Message -- as relayed by His Holy Prophet, Tolkien (Praise be Upon His Holy Name) -- is there and if you choose to ignore it, *you* will be the ones drying out for all eternity in the dusty Halls of Mandos and not me.

BTW, you know the 2.7K cosmic background radiation that creationists never talk about? Well, this is actually an echo of the Music of the Ainur! What more proof could be needed?

homeostatic · 12-11-2005 01:46PM

J.C. Wrote
However, the Bible does mandate us to explain why we believe what we do using logic and the Word of God (which is expressed in both the Bible and in His Creation). This is confirmed in 1Pet 3:15 where Christians are told to “always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”.(NIV)

Modern Creation Science is an ultra-modern application of ‘cutting-edge’ science to the study of the resultant effects of Special Divine Creation - and it takes it’s mandate from the biblical confirmation in Rom 1:19-20 that God’s actions can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. The fact that Creation Science uses modern scientific methods in the pursuit of biblical truth is a good reason for all Christians, and other mono-theists, to support it’s endeavours – and indeed many do so.

J.C., as a Christian, I am very appreciative of the work that you do. You are obviously a very educated person. I am sure that you have helped invigorate and encourage believers with scientific proof for what they already knew but were not able to quantify.

I am well aware of 1Peter 3, because of my on evangelical training, and my efforts to equip others to do so. "Giving an answer" or as we say, "apologizing" for our faith need not necessarily have scientific proof for Christ’s existence. Christ even said "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29).

Please don't get me wrong, I believe you are doing very important work and I am very thankful that you are using your gifts in that way. My only concern is that many people are fearful when it comes to witnessing. When confronted with the daunting breadth of knowledge that you use to present the Gospel, many may become fearful that (s)he isn’t equipped to witness, or that (s)he isn’t smart enough to grasp many of the concepts you present; therefore, (s)he is ill-equipped to present the gospel. As we are probably both aware, the most effective witness is one who gives his own testimony as to the saving grace of Christ Jesus.

Sapien · 12-11-2005 02:28PM

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien

Your humourous history fails the test of authenticity. Its author and the circumstances of its writing attest to this, as I have already pointed out. The witness of Scripture has been attested to down the ages, with multitudes suffering privation and death rather than deny it.

What you use humourously to illustrate your point has however been used seriously in the foundation of various religions. The Mormons spring to mind - Joseph Smith and his golden plates. We are near enough the events to test them, to find out what the central characters actually lived like, what they taught then as compared to now. The more ancient religions are not susceptible to that sort of investigation, but must be assessed for their coherency and compatibility with certain sure facts (not theories).

Wolfsbane - your obtuse refusal to engage with the points I make signals that you are by no means so confident about your "christian" beliefs as you claim. In response to your, really rather vacuous, detraction of the Message I have previously written:

"Which are we to believe - a text which is delivered wholesale and in pristine completeness to a messenger of the Creator, or a grubby text handed down from propagandic hand to embellishing fist through countless centuries and innumerable agendas?"

Well? What exactly is it about the origin of the Silmarillion that make you believe that it cannot be an authentic history of the world? And I have repeatedly invited you to test the "coherency and compatibility" (sic.) of the Message - and you have so far refused to engage. Why is that?

robindch, you are of course correct. The Divine importance of the Silmarillion, and the Ainurian nature of Tolkien (PBUHN) is explicit from the first line of the Text. But do not be too Hasty in your judgement of these misguided souls - it is only the Valar Mandos himself who shall decide which souls are to be interred in his Halls, and which are to be allowed to roam the broad, glistening streets of the Shining City. And all, in the end, will be reunited with Iluvatar when the World in Changed - unless of course they are of Dwarvish ancestry, which, to be perfectly honest, I often suspect when confronted with such belligerent and unreasonable flight from the Truth.

Sapien · 12-11-2005 02:34PM

Asiaprod wrote:

That does indeed Sapien, thank you for englightening me. Nice choice to use Tolkien. Irrefutable evidence, one could indeed agree.

"Lambane kai heydou anathema mou"

"Lambane kai heydou anathemata heymown"

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 04:20PM

Sapien said:
Well? What exactly is it about the origin of the Silmarillion that make you believe that it cannot be an authentic history of the world? And I have repeatedly invited you to test the "coherency and compatibility" (sic.) of the Message - and you have so far refused to engage. Why is that?

Sigh,

, your parable is more wearisome than humourous now. Would J.R.R. Tolkien's own witness and that of his friends not prove his story was not meant to be taken as real? But the Bible, which you wish to reduce to the same level, was written by eye-witnesses, many of whom who laid down their lives rather than deny what God had revealed to them. Maybe you would face prison and death for the truth of your Silmarillion?

Sapien · 12-11-2005 04:39PM

wolfsbane wrote:

Would J.R.R. Tolkien's own witness and that of his friends not prove his story was not meant to be taken as real? But the Bible, which you wish to reduce to the same level, was written by eye-witnesses, many of whom who laid down their lives rather than deny what God had revealed to them. Maybe you would face prison and death for the truth of your Silmarillion?

Certainly I would.

Tolkien (PBUHN) was forced to shroud his message in the pretence of fiction for fear of persecution by the "christian" authorities. He knew that the power of the Silmarillion, once perceived by the World of Men, would speak to readers of the profound Truth of the Message. It is only within the Text itself that the Truth can be found - and the Text never deviates from the clear affirmation that its contents are utterly real, as robindch points out - from the very first sentence.

You continue to skirt the issue, wolfsbane. I have challenged you to find elements of the Silmarillion that are incoherent as a history of the world. Care to rise to this challenge? (A dismissal of this challenge will, naturally, be taken as a Dwarvish negligence of the Quest for Truth, and a concession of defeat to the larger question at hand.)

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 05:14PM

Sapien

I have no intention of wasting my time demonstrating that fiction is fiction. You may feel the same about the Bible - that's your problem. But if you want me to doubt the historical record of the Bible, then it is up to you to expose it.

The gospel call goes out to all men and women. Christians try to answer any questions or objections they raise - like evolution - but we don't have to run around in circles doing so. We preach the Word, those who are of God eventually heed it. Those who are not, never will:
John 10:22 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

Sapien · 12-11-2005 05:57PM

Either my point is lost on you, or you are retreating in cowardice and defeat.

Tell me why Tolkien's Silmarillion is less feasible as a history of the world than the Bible, or concede that it is not so.

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 07:15PM

Sapien, I can't believe you are serious!

OK, for the last time - J.R.R.Tolkien wrote it as a work of fiction. Everyone since, maybe excluding some inmates of an asylum (and now you), have accepted it as such. We can document it as such. The Bible, however, was written by men claiming to be inspired by God. These men were recognised as such by their contempories and by the faithful ever since. They laid down their lives in support of their claims.

Son Goku · 12-11-2005 08:27PM

wolfsbane wrote:

Sapien, I can't believe you are serious!

OK, for the last time - J.R.R.Tolkien wrote it as a work of fiction. Everyone since, maybe excluding some inmates of an asylum (and now you), have accepted it as such. We can document it as such. The Bible, however, was written by men claiming to be inspired by God. These men were recognised as such by their contempories and by the faithful ever since. They laid down their lives in support of their claims.

Doesn't the same apply to the Vedas?
Wouldn't that make it as feasible a history of the world as the Bible?

hairyheretic · 12-11-2005 08:51PM

wolfsbane wrote:

A new history of man, one not heard of before, would suggest it is not history at all. Credible history needs some evidence that it has been passed on from the original happening, down through the generations.

The problem with things being passed down is that there is no assurance they will be passed unchanged. If something starts with a oral tradation, each person who tells a story will tell it in their own way, with their own words, and over time that can certainly see events changed, whether it be in a subtle or blatant manner.

Even with a written tradation, things can still be changed. If there is a limited number of accounts, and you make yours the most widespread and believed, then you can define that history.

Over the centuries, who is to say how much written accounts of any events have changed, due to personal bias of the writter, accidental changes, mistranslations, or any other reason.

Has the bible changed over the last 2000 years or so? I don't know .. but believe its possible. Same as I believe that change is possible in any other account that goes back centuries.

wolfsbane wrote:

They surely contradict each other. What I said was the Bible account was coherent, not self-contradictory.

Religious beliefs do contradict each in their creation stories.

Scientific evidence tends to give the same results (generally speaking), irrespective of the beliefs of those scientists.

wolfsbane wrote:

Certainly - am I not doing so with yours now?

I've not made any reference to the creation story of my own belief

I've encounter a fair number of religious fundamentalists though (from various faiths) who believe that theirs is the only true way, and everyone else is wrong.

I'm more inclined to believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, whatever those may be.

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 09:55PM

Son Goku said:
Doesn't the same apply to the Vedas?

If it fulfills the same conditions, Yes. We can then say that we cannot prove they were written as fiction, unlike Tolkien's work.

Wouldn't that make it as feasible a history of the world as the Bible?

Only if were as coherent and as consistent with the known facts of history and observation.

robindch · 12-11-2005 10:08PM

> J.R.R.Tolkien wrote it as a work of fiction. [...] We can document it as
> such. The Bible, however, was written by men claiming to be inspired
> by God. [...] They laid down their lives in support of their claims.

Where does the Prophet (PBUHN) say that the words of The Silmarillion are false, intended only to snare the minds of the halt and the wills of the lame? The Prophet's Holy Word is only Truth and only His Holy Word is Truth!

With Sapien, I challenge you to demonstrate that a single one of the Holy Book's "profoundest reflections" (p10, HC, 1998) are false. Your heresy is nothing but the "lies and evil whisperings and false counsel" (p69, HC, 1998) so fond of Melkor and his willing servants.

And so as no clearer evidence is needed of the bible’s false intent than the willing deaths of its supporters, so also is there no clearer evidence of the Truth of the Prophet’s Word than in the still-vital lives of its readers. Believe! Lest ye feel the wrath of Tulkas "whose anger passes like a mighty wind, scattering cloud and darkness before it" (p35, HC, 1998).

Son Goku · 12-11-2005 10:12PM

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:
Doesn't the same apply to the Vedas?

If it fulfills the same conditions, Yes. We can then say that we cannot prove they were written as fiction, unlike Tolkien's work.

Wouldn't that make it as feasible a history of the world as the Bible?

Only if were as coherent and as consistent with the known facts of history and observation.

The Vedas are very coherent and consistent with a great deal of observations.

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 10:19PM

hairyheretic said:
The problem with things being passed down is that there is no assurance they will be passed unchanged.

True. That applies to all history - even the events of our own generation. However, Christians rely on the promises of God to preserve His word, and the evidence from the ancient texts we have found supports that belief. But that is no proof that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant truth. Sufficient proof for that can only come by God impressing this fact on our hearts and minds. All short of that can only establish the Bible as a 'credible' record.

Scientific evidence tends to give the same results (generally speaking), irrespective of the beliefs of those scientists.

Not so - haven't you heard of competing theories? One has the data, then one must offer an explanation of how it came to be so.

I've not made any reference to the creation story of my own belief

My apologies - I assumed you were an evolutionist.

I've encounter a fair number of religious fundamentalists though (from various faiths) who believe that theirs is the only true way, and everyone else is wrong.

Er, wouldn't they by hypocrites or fools to believe otherwise? I mean, do you believe my way is just as true as yours?

I'm more inclined to believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, whatever those may be.

I entirely agree. But what has their right to hold any belief got to do with the truth or falsity of their beliefs?

wolfsbane · 12-11-2005 10:25PM

Son Goku said:
The Vedas are very coherent and consistent with a great deal of observations.

I confess my ignorance of those texts. May I ask what their creation story is?

Asiaprod · 13-11-2005 12:25AM

Sapien wrote:

"Lambane kai heydou anathemata heymown"

''Houtos hekso''

hairyheretic · 13-11-2005 12:33AM

wolfsbane wrote:

True. That applies to all history - even the events of our own generation.

Given the tendancy of the media and various other groups attempts to 'spin' stuff, I'd consider that a given <G>

wolfsbane wrote:

However, Christians rely on the promises of God to preserve His word, and the evidence from the ancient texts we have found supports that belief.

So what of evidence that contradicts that belief?

Over the years I've heard a few stories of books removed from the bible, or changes being made. I'm afraid I can't provide anything to back this up, as it was years ago now I heard this. It may or may not be true.

Quick googling has turned up this link, which illustates the point nicely

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/septuagint.html

with variious books being removed from protestant versions of the bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

But that is no proof that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant truth. Sufficient proof for that can only come by God impressing this fact on our hearts and minds. All short of that can only establish the Bible as a 'credible' record.

The same could probably be said of any sacred texts, and of those who believe in them.

wolfsbane wrote:

Not so - haven't you heard of competing theories? One has the data, then one must offer an explanation of how it came to be so.

True. How much of those theories is attempting to build a logical framework for the observed data, and how much an attempt to fit it to preconceived beliefs I wonder?

wolfsbane wrote:

My apologies - I assumed you were an evolutionist.

I do believe in evolution, yes, even if my own paths creation story is somewhat different

wolfsbane wrote:

Er, wouldn't they by hypocrites or fools to believe otherwise? I mean, do you believe my way is just as true as yours?

I believe that there is wisdom to be found in every path.

I don't know all the answers. I know that I have found the right path for myself. Its not going to be the one that everyone picks, so who am I to say that their way isn't as valid as mine?

I'll do my best to live an honorable life, by the tenets of my own belief, and treat others as they deserve. When my time comes, I will face whatever lies beyond, taking full responsiblity for every choice I've made.

wolfsbane wrote:

I entirely agree. But what has their right to hold any belief got to do with the truth or falsity of their beliefs?

There are numerous beliefs. No one knows for certain which, any or all, are "right". If you cast doubt on one, then you cast doubt on all, your own included, because there will certainly be others out there who feel that your beliefs are anywhere from misguided to leading you to your doom.

Short of some divine revalation turning up and tapping me on the shoulder, I will continue to follow the path I've found, and let all others do the same.

Asiaprod · 13-11-2005 01:46AM

hairyheretic wrote:

I believe that there is wisdom to be found in every path.

I don't know all the answers. I know that I have found the right path for myself. Its not going to be the one that everyone picks, so who am I to say that their way isn't as valid as mine?

I'll do my best to live an honorable life, by the tenets of my own belief, and treat others as they deserve. When my time comes, I will face whatever lies beyond, taking full responsiblity for every choice I've made.

Short of some divine revalation turning up and tapping me on the shoulder, I will continue to follow the path I've found, and let all others do the same.

Very well put, who could possibly ask for more than this. Sums the whole thing up nicely.

Asiaprod · 13-11-2005 01:54AM

JC,
Here is somthing for you to ponder over the weekend.

Dr. Lynn Margulis thinks humans are, essentially, a colony of closely associated bacteria. When she first proposed her theory in The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells in 1970, the ideas proved so controversial that they “could not even be discussed at respectable scientific meetings.” Today, however, the theory that most scientists rejected out of hand has earned, in the words of biologist Richard Dawkins, “triumphant near-universal acceptance.”

The human story, as Margulis first saw it, began about 3.2 billion years ago when the only inhabitants on earth were bacteria. About that time, two primitive species of bacteria, a “mother” bacteria (Bdellavibrio) and a “father” bacteria (Thermoplasma acidophillium) started “exchanging energy” in a stable and dependable way that led to the formation of all subsequent life forms. This happened when the free-living bacteria took up residence in large “eukaryotic” cells. Confined within the large cells, the bacteria transformed into swarming elliptical membrane-filled bodies called mitochondria. With the formation of mitochondria began the flow of a river of DNA that sweeps through three billion years to include us all.

Asiaprod · 13-11-2005 06:01AM

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:
The Vedas are very coherent and consistent with a great deal of observations.

I confess my ignorance of those texts. May I ask what their creation story is?

That is a very difficult question to answer, The Vedas are very complex, but to put it in a nutshell,
The world was created with the breath of the Paramatman manifesting itself as the sound of the Vedas.
The Paramatman is beyond knowledge and ignorance, devoid of all material attributes (upadhi). In Vaishnavite texts, it is described as four-armed Lord Vishnu residing in the hearts of all beings and in every atom of matter.

In other words, Paramatman is the Hindu equivalent of God, and creation is all to do with vibration and the sound that vibration makes.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments