How would have Jesus responded to Darwin?

Page 3 of 5 [ 67 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

26 Jul 2011, 7:18 am

Scytholder wrote:

Judging from how the Bible depicts Jesus, Jesus would've most likely shunned Darwin's theory. Despite what seem to be revolutionary views, he was still a fanatic Jew who seemed to have taken the Old Testament Scriptures more literally than what some of us believe.

"some of us " being?

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

26 Jul 2011, 8:58 am

Philologos wrote:

Scytholder wrote:

"some of us " being?

... those who might not.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

26 Jul 2011, 9:22 am

I would be interested to see a specific - Jesus taking a piece of OT literally. Not just seriously - literally.

I am not this minute going to skim the whole record - but it seems to me he generally looks at sense not letter and rebukes those who are too picky.

Seems you have some points in mind?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 11:10 am

ruveyn wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As per the days issue, I view the explanation based on gravitational time dilation as being the most likely of cosmological models fitting with a reading of Genesis that doesn't involve argumentum ad vericundium with eisegesis. The days would be days of time according to the measure of length of time on Earth now, but further out from this galaxy we're in there would be the billions years of time passage. The Gamov model has a universe with no center of mass axiomatically assumed, but if that axiom is negated and a universe with a center of mass is assumed instead then, along with the universe expanding outward even now which means at one time it was altogether in a gravitational singularity, you have a rather lot of gravitational time dilation in the past and the closer to the center of mass the more pronounced the effect. At present density the effect is minimal (it would decrease as density decreases) but in the past there would have been much higher density of the matter of our universe meaning much higher effect upon the passage of time. Matter closer to the center of mass would proceed through time slower than matter toward the edge. As such, I believe it would be possible to have a young Earth in an otherwise ancient universe.

Nonsense. The earth is over four billion standard years old. There is little special or privileged about or physical makeup up or position in the cosmos.

ruveyn

Not for the Earth particularly, but if the Copernican principle is rejected with regard to the interpretation of redshifts? If you take that philosophically founded axiom away, what would the data then say?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 11:18 am

Philologos wrote:

"Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation." Luke 11:49-51

"And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate"." Matthew 19:4-6

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:37-39

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Jul 2011, 1:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Possibly, as that was what his human self was raised with, and so at the time very likely accepted it as fact.
Or possibly, he was using the biblical example of the time to simply convey a message familiar to the people, though he may have had the divine knowledge that he was using what amounted to folklore.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Jul 2011, 2:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Nonsense. The earth is over four billion standard years old. There is little special or privileged about or physical makeup up or position in the cosmos.

ruveyn

It would still say billyuns and billyuns of years. The potassium-argon test does not lie.

The bible taken literally is pre-scientific nonsense.

ruveyn

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

26 Jul 2011, 3:36 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

argumentum ad vericundium

I'm very familiar with your misuse of logical fallacies, specially that one:

wiki wrote:

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

[edit] Fallacious appeals to authority

Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.

Quote:

with eisegesis. The days would be days of time according to the measure of length of time on Earth now, but further out from this galaxy we're in there would be the billions years of time passage. The Gamov model has a universe with no center of mass axiomatically assumed, but if that axiom is negated and a universe with a center of mass is assumed instead then, along with the universe expanding outward even now which means at one time it was altogether in a gravitational singularity, you have a rather lot of gravitational time dilation in the past and the closer to the center of mass the more pronounced the effect. At present density the effect is minimal (it would decrease as density decreases) but in the past there would have been much higher density of the matter of our universe meaning much higher effect upon the passage of time. Matter closer to the center of mass would proceed through time slower than matter toward the edge. As such, I believe it would be possible to have a young Earth in an otherwise ancient universe.

Does your hypothesis meet the standard requirements for scientific validity? to say an example, is your hypothesis falsafiable? Or else, pseudoscientific babble.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 3:49 pm

blunnet wrote:

Does your hypothesis meet the standard requirements for scientific validity? to say an example, is your hypothesis falsafiable? Or else, pseudoscientific babble.

Not my hypothesis, but if one were to travel 100,000 lightyears and measure the redshifts of light (accounting for the velocity of the vehicle and other relativistic effects, of course) they would be able to determine whether or not everything is expanding outward equally from each other or whether there is a center of expansion. If the redshifts were to be approximately the same 100,000 lightyears away as they are within our galaxy then it would be falsified, and thus is at least falsifiable in principle. We need to develop the propulsion technology to travel as close to light speed as possible though.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 3:53 pm

blunnet wrote:

I'm very familiar with your misuse of logical fallacies, specially that one:

And you've only been a member here since 2011, April 4th and have had no other accounts before. Sure.

Omerik
Velociraptor

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

26 Jul 2011, 4:36 pm

Jesus never spoke about this kind of issue.

Jesus didn't judge people.
He didn't say who's better that another.
Why is saying that evolution exists, if you believe in it, anti-religious? You say that God controls everything, and that this event is part of God's creation, so that not everything meanwhile the process needs to be explained. Just liked someone can ask you how you turn ice into water, and instead of saying that "God turns it into water", you explain what scientifically happens there. If saying that ice melts and not because of God isn't blasphemy, then so is saying that our ancestors turned to be humans along the generations without being blasphemy. We changed, things scientifically happened. Nothing to do with the question whether there is a God or isn't. I doubt Jesus would've dismissed scientific facts. He was more likely to praise our intelligence, allowing us to grape the amazing science in this world created by God.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 4:53 pm

Omerik wrote:

Jesus never spoke about this kind of issue.

He never referenced the book of Genesis and the antediluvian period in particular?

Omerik wrote:

Jesus didn't judge people.

He never called anyone a "brood of vipers" or say anything about, say, Capernum?

Omerik wrote:

He didn't say who's better that another.

Not even about the least among you being greatest, that amity with this world is enmity with God?

Omerik wrote:

Why is saying that evolution exists, if you believe in it, anti-religious? You say that God controls everything, and that this event is part of God's creation, so that not everything meanwhile the process needs to be explained. Just liked someone can ask you how you turn ice into water, and instead of saying that "God turns it into water", you explain what scientifically happens there. If saying that ice melts and not because of God isn't blasphemy, then so is saying that our ancestors turned to be humans along the generations without being blasphemy. We changed, things scientifically happened. Nothing to do with the question whether there is a God or isn't. I doubt Jesus would've dismissed scientific facts. He was more likely to praise our intelligence, allowing us to grape the amazing science in this world created by God.

Actually, you're partially correct, given the opening to John chapter 3, "If I speak to you of worldly things and you don't understand, then how can I speak to you of heavenly things?" paraphrased from memory.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Jul 2011, 4:59 pm

As I recall, Jesus referred to the pharisees, who were the fundamentalists and litteralists of his day, a brood of vipers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 5:04 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

As I recall, Jesus referred to the pharisees, who were the fundamentalists and litteralists of his day, a brood of vipers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You assert this and by implication imply blah blah blah, yes, we know your opinions about your fellow Christians.

Omerik
Velociraptor

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

26 Jul 2011, 5:09 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Omerik wrote:

Jesus never spoke about this kind of issue.

He never referenced the book of Genesis and the antediluvian period in particular?

Where did he reference it? Perhaps I'm wrong.

Quote:

He never called anyone a "brood of vipers" or say anything about, say, Capernum?

I don't remember anything about that village (should be noted: I'm not Christian, I'm a Jew who believes in Jesus as at least a prophet). I do remember him saving a Samaritan woman, after saying that he was sent only to save Israel, but she proved that she has faith in the same God, and his parable of the Good Samaritan, when the Samaritans were assumed to be "not-good" as "rivals" of the Jews. So if anything, I remember him defending other people. And even sinners ("let the person who hasn't sinned cast the first stone", was it something like that?).

Quote:

Not even about the least among you being greatest, that amity with this world is enmity with God?

I admit, I don't recognise this example of yours. Please quote.
You might be wrong and I acknowledge that by the way.
I'm speaking about what I remember, I don't rule out the possibility that I'm wrong and you're right, though...

Quote:

I'm not sure that's against what I'm saying. If anything, in my opinion it can be explained as saying that every "miracle" can be scientifically explained, as if you don't understand it, and its complexity, and not only "thus God spake", then it means nothing explaining it to the multitude, as they don't understand why it's special.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Jul 2011, 5:27 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Philologos wrote:

Possibly, as that was what his human self was raised with, and so at the time very likely accepted it as fact.
Or possibly, he was using the biblical example of the time to simply convey a message familiar to the people, though he may have had the divine knowledge that he was using what amounted to folklore.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Right, and so God can lie so long as it's convenient to the times of the day of those reading it?

Page 3 of 5 [ 67 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

How would have Jesus responded to Darwin? Post Reply New Topic

How would have Jesus responded to Darwin?