In the Beginning...

[Arakhor]

That is the way it was written, although modern scholars think they know better, and twist the words to fit their pet notions. Even the Enuma Elish that was introduced as a point of authority to compliment the text in the OP says that before all else, a "God" started the process. But even that is ignored.

I know that you have this strange fetish for declaring scientists are deliberately misinterpreting religion to suit their own ends, yet you keep ignoring those people that that phrase aptly describes - the likes of Sitchen, Hancock and Velikovsky (and, for that matter, YEC apologists). The whole point of a scientific theory is to explain how that aspect of reality works and God or gods have no part in any falsifiable theory.

 

[timtofly]

I know that you have this strange fetish for declaring scientists are deliberately misinterpreting religion to suit their own ends, yet you keep ignoring those people that that phrase aptly describes - the likes of Sitchen, Hancock and Velikovsky (and, for that matter, YEC apologists). The whole point of a scientific theory is to explain how that aspect of reality works and God or gods have no part in any falsifiable theory.

If the end of a scientist's endeavor is to be dogmatic, then yes, I am, going to point out the hypocrisy, that they are doing the same thing they are accusing pseudoscience hacks of doing. I am not saying they are misinterpreting evidence, much less doing so deliberately. I am pointing out that they seem to be rejecting any other interpretation. Telling a person they are misinterpreting something is being abusive to subjective viewpoints. I am not deliberately telling people they are wrong. What is the point of doing that? I am not ruling out that I may have done that in the thread, but it was not deliberate.

I may be wrong on the point, but I am pointing out by context, what is trying to be said, instead of attempting to make a claim on some modern interpretation that is dogmatic about what they think the ancients were saying by locking it into a framework, that the ancients may have no notion of, much less were attempting an explanation of. Just because we today ask ourselves "Why", does not mean the ancients did that in all their "written" work that has been left to us. We do have examples that the writer did point out they were reasoning or trying to come to a conclusion about a matter. Then we have writing, that (has been pointed out about my own postings) they were just writing down observations, and were making no conclusions or even trying to figure things out. Yes, some of those observations make no sense to us at all. Why would I make any judgment on those who have already been judged, when I am not even judging current posters? That is not my forte. If pointing out certain attributes of current posters is an act of judgment, how can the scientific method even work? There has to be some unbiased and unprejudiced way to put observations in words that do not preclude a persons own opinion on the matter, but still present an observation. If we claim that reality only includes the physical, then why are humans using science to explain away the spiritual? Those who accept God as a reality have no issue with the conundrum. I am not so sure the Mesopotamians used science to explain spiritual things. I think they just named the things that they experienced. It was the Greeks who started to rationalize why the Mesopotamians could experience God as a reality. That is the birth of philosophy and reasoning. It was also the birth of science to use what we do know, to figure out what we do not know. I am one of the humans who accepts all reality, even if it is unknown to me. It seems like some only accept the reality that is known to them, or they have trusted others who (such reality) has been known to them, but they do not accept all reality. If reality is relegated to only that which a person may ever know, on an individual basis, no human would ever agree with another human on what reality is. That assumption may be wrong, but reality is not centered on what I know, or even think I know, and that can be a source of trepidation. I am not going to make claims against all reality to assuage my doubts. I think that even the greatest thinkers have come to that conclusion. They just rename reality to make it more palatable for themselves and the people around them. Putting names to observations and coming up with concepts to explain the unknown are two different things. Using them interchangeably are going to produce different results.

 

[Arakhor]

If the end of a scientist's endeavor is to be dogmatic...

That would be a gigantic 'if', given that no one does science to prove something that is authoritative and unchallengeable (the key reason being that you never prove anything in the Scientific Method, rather you simply fail to disprove it).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I did not realize that moving goalpost is the ability to carry on a discussion with 4+ different points of view. Since you seem to be one of the few dogmatic "unwilling to change my way of thinking" posters in this thread, I hardly think that changing my opinions is hardly moving goalpost, but adjusting unknowns that have finally made sense to me.

There's "willing to change my way of thinking" and then there's "since you didn't like my idea of two posts ago, I'm going to trot out some other idea and see if you like it." You did that when we were talking about the Flood - since I wouldn't go for a 6000-10,000 year timeframe, you moved the goalposts into prehistory... by a few hundred thousand years and expected me to believe that Noah was around then to build the Ark.

It's the same here - you change your mind every few posts, still with no evidence to show why you darted off on a different tangent. Where did this "Earth was a gas giant" notion come from? We're nothing like a gas giant. Your posts are stream of consciousness, with little reason behind them.

You say you want evidence. Does that mean you are willing to change your mind? If that is the case, why are you on my case when I change my mind? I guess I have some strange ability to post what seems obvious to me, and instead of posters presenting their own observations, all I am getting is criticism on my ability to view things.

Of course I'm willing to change my mind - if evidence is provided. I'm on your case because you're changing your mind without evidence.

Why would you feel obliged at all? You have pointed out points that are obvious to you, and some of them are even legitimate.

Oh, wow. Some of my points are "even legitimate." Oh, my.

You do realize that this is an argument I'm having with Berzerker, right? Are you now saying that you're in 100% agreement with him, and therefore feel that you can speak for him?

For the most part, the only thing that makes sense is that there is a difference in how some evidence can be interpreted several different ways, but then the goalpost are moved and you do not even give any legitimacy to any of the counterpoints based on a totally different assumption, and then we have to move to a different ball park to keep up with the argument in question.

That's the key thing, though: assumption. Yes, evidence can be interpreted in different ways - when there's evidence in the first place.

1.) You cannot make a statement using the word "all" and it be taken seriously. You do not know for a fact that "all" deities were created by humans, unless you can prove in every case of every deity (not that you know of) but all those you do not, and prove that a human created such a deity.

Fine, then. Show me proof that even one of these deities exists. And don't bother mentioning the Bible. That's just a collection of stories written by a committee with a very bad editing and translating team.

2.) Naming a deity is a process, but in the case at hand, these were not gods, but planets which were deified by humans as gods. It would be like awarding some athlete, and giving them a name for their accomplishments. In this case it is attaching some spiritual distinction to a physical body.

You're assuming that the ancients who first named them knew they were planets. They were seen as bright lights that wander in a path around the sky, and were named as gods. It was only later that observers started to figure out what they were.

3.) Your statement is not addressing the point, but entirely dismissing it based on you blanket argument, instead of a realization that the word means more than just the one point you are pointing out.

When I see arguments that the early solar system was populated by gods who did things for no apparent reason, it's just silly.

I accept that there may have been a group of people who addressed Tiamat as a deity, and more than likely did what ever humans did to recognize that fact, but the point of Tiamat in this thread has been to explain the process whereby an event came about to even give a name that some group of people may have incorporated into their religious experience. Dismissing it as just a concept conveniently removes the action behind the concept, so one does not even have to address the actual topic.

If Tiamat = Earth, why not just say Earth, if you're trying to describe Earth's experiences as a proto-planet and in its early history? Why dress it up with stories that just muddy things for people who are trying to understand the actual science?

I'm reminded of the "journalist" who did an article for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website about the possibility of life on other planets. She figured the readers were too stupid to understand the scientific concept of the "Goldilocks zone" so she spent a couple of paragraphs on the story of the Three Bears - getting about half of it wrong, by the way - and I have to wonder, given her dismal record of using astrologers as sources for her articles on eclipses, using outdated and silly words like "Earthlings", and her reliance on a children's story for this, if she really thinks the people who read science articles on that website are 8 years old, or if that's just her own level of understanding.

For some reason, Tiamat seems to address several different things, from chaos, to the solar system itself, and then finally a process that actually involved the earth as going through several different experiences before it became what it actually was. In either case the perspective is from one living on this earth, and the misleading assumption that a person is the center of their universe. That is both true and wrong at the same time, as no one knows where the actual center of the universe is. If one can put their ego aside and realize they are not the administrator of their life experiences, it opens up different views and interpretations on their experiences. Tiamat would be the goddess that points that out, regardless of gender overtones.

What does gender have to do with it? Tiamat is a mythical character regardless of gender.

Heaven in this context is not a mythical place. Neither the Hebrews nor Jews, used heaven as a mythical place. That was a Christian concept, at the most, and something Jesus allegedly promised. Once again moving the goalpost to dismiss the topic at hand. It may be argued that as time went by, and the Hebrews were influenced by their polytheistic neighbors that there is more to Heaven than the physical universe, then perhaps you may have a point.

In the first chapter is does not say that God created the place where this God resided. When you play a simulation game, you do not create your house, your computer, neither the software. You just create your world from what is at hand. In this case God created the universe out of nothing. That is the way it was written, although modern scholars think they know better, and twist the words to fit their pet notions. Even the Enuma Elish that was introduced as a point of authority to compliment the text in the OP says that before all else, a "God" started the process. But even that is ignored.

As always, show me the evidence of your "heaven" and this "God" that supposedly started everything.

I agree with you here. You do not address the point that there could be a systematic expansion going on in the formation of the solar system. The whole point about the "bracelet" was a concept inserted when the Greek Bible was translated into Latin. This was after all the Greek influence on what had happened in the physical world. At that point the "scholars" would not even accept the earth as being in the center, but swapped the earth's position with the sun. If they would have agreed that the earth was actually where they put the sun, and the sun was placed as the center, it would have helped those people who are so dogmatic about everything. This has very little to do with the actual intent of the Text we are talking about, as this concept was added hundreds of years after the original was even written. Pointing out that there may be about 4 places in the Bible that show the Jews taught the world was flat, really has nothing to do with the teaching, but stretching way beyond what was actually in context with what the passage was even talking about. It was the "scientist" and those esteemed scholars in Greek and Latin circles that kept these errors about the physical universe going. A flat earth as a disk has always been an extra-biblical process, which some have claimed to be their only place to go to accept if the Bible is true or not. If the Bible does not teach it, and extra-biblical sources do, which one is correct?

The nice thing about science is that it finally grew up and the scientific method was developed. I never said that scientists were never wrong. Of course they've been wrong about some things, and there will be many more instances of them being wrong. But modern science doesn't cling to the wrong things and insist they're right because "God/the Bible/tradition says so."

The OP was a speculative question. What do you mean by progress? This whole thread has been progressive, There have been some conservatives and dogmatics that have made it even more extensive a process.

The OP is such a fan of Sitchin that he's not even slightly willing to admit that Sitchin isn't taken seriously by any credible scientist. He parrots Sitchin's notions as though they're fact. Admitting that he's speculating is indeed progress.

If the end of a scientist's endeavor is to be dogmatic, then yes, I am, going to point out the hypocrisy, that they are doing the same thing they are accusing pseudoscience hacks of doing. I am not saying they are misinterpreting evidence, much less doing so deliberately. I am pointing out that they seem to be rejecting any other interpretation. Telling a person they are misinterpreting something is being abusive to subjective viewpoints. I am not deliberately telling people they are wrong. What is the point of doing that? I am not ruling out that I may have done that in the thread, but it was not deliberate.

They're rejecting notions that don't come with evidence. If evidence were provided, they'd take it more seriously.

If we claim that reality only includes the physical, then why are humans using science to explain away the spiritual?

Have you heard one of the "spiritual" explanations of thunder? "Oh, the angels are bowling in Heaven."

Um, no. That's not what causes thunder. It does a great disservice to tell a child a nonsense story instead of explaining the real cause.

Or take something with more serious ramifications - explaining to children where babies come from. One "spiritual" explanation goes thus: "Mommy and Daddy really wanted a child to love, so they prayed and God gave them a baby. That baby grew up to be you." Fast-forward ten years, and the girl who got told this story wonders why she got pregnant after having sex with her boyfriend: "But how could I be having a baby? I didn't pray for one!". It makes a hell of a lot more sense to explain human reproduction to the child - age-appropriately, of course, and before a pregnancy occurs. It's bizarre how some "religious right" people in my province get hysterical at the thought of their 9-10 year-old children being taught about human reproduction. "Tell them later! Like when they're 14 or 15!"

Sorry. If you wait that long, you might as well face the idea of possibly becoming a grandparent five or ten years too early.

 

[timtofly]

There's "willing to change my way of thinking" and then there's "since you didn't like my idea of two posts ago, I'm going to trot out some other idea and see if you like it." You did that when we were talking about the Flood - since I wouldn't go for a 6000-10,000 year timeframe, you moved the goalposts into prehistory... by a few hundred thousand years and expected me to believe that Noah was around then to build the Ark..

I have yet to state when the Flood was. I do not have enough information to make a "dogmatic" claim, and already stated I will probably never make such a claim. Humans today hardly accept half of what has been put in the biblical account. Most people all over the world have mentioned an event, that does not necessarily prove nor disprove that it happened. You are the one who is putting dates when referencing my post.

It's the same here - you change your mind every few posts, still with no evidence to show why you darted off on a different tangent. Where did this "Earth was a gas giant" notion come from? We're nothing like a gas giant. Your posts are stream of consciousness, with little reason behind them.

So science can change with new information, and you point out that I change my mind too much? I was not making a claim that the earth "was" a gas giant. It was the result of a gas giant and a terrestrial planet forming in the same location. Neither had the chance to fully form. Their impact caused earth and a mars size planet to form. This planet if it exist is the 9th planet out there somewhere, or it is not. How can one rule out what is not, nor rule out what cannot be proven to not exist. It is like God and remains to be seen. Earth and a Mars size planet, then chased each other until they had an impact that resulted in two moons, and they had a final impact resulting in the current moon. I am not saying that is what happened. I am saying that is a model that I am comfortable with, until more data/evidence comes in.

Of course I'm willing to change my mind - if evidence is provided. I'm on your case because you're changing your mind without evidence.

Sorry, but I have no imagination. I am just going with any evidence that current scientist feel free to share with the rest of the world. Perhaps all are waiting for that perfect revelation, but I am not placing my bets on scientific research. I just need a tangible point of reference to explain my acceptance for my own personal taste.

You do realize that this is an argument I'm having with Berzerker, right? Are you now saying that you're in 100% agreement with him, and therefore feel that you can speak for him?

I was merely pointing out that Tiamat is not just a goddess. It is not even just a term used for the earth, nor the earth being split, since it seems the solar disc was split. It describes a whole process of a forming solar system. I think Berzerker is getting there, but he keeps sticking to the point in Genesis 1, that he seems to think "says" the earth was split. I am not speaking for him, just pointing out what I am trying to figure out concerning his claims. It is called feedback.

That's the key thing, though: assumption. Yes, evidence can be interpreted in different ways - when there's evidence in the first place.

Fine, then. Show me proof that even one of these deities exists. And don't bother mentioning the Bible. That's just a collection of stories written by a committee with a very bad editing and translating team.

I cannot "show" you proof. Proof is how you subjectively process the evidence. There is plenty of evidence already known, and there is evidence that is unknown, that will eventually be known. I cannot manipulate your mind, and prove anything, as it seems we may never come to any agreement. Unless you think that proof and evidence is interchangeable and there is no need to use proof for something other than what you consider as evidence. Clearly there is some evidence that I use as proof, and you use the same evidence as your proof, but we do not come to the same conclusion, ie proof we are looking for. It would seem that we interpret the evidence differently and you are making the judgment call that I am wrong.

You're assuming that the ancients who first named them knew they were planets. They were seen as bright lights that wander in a path around the sky, and were named as gods. It was only later that observers started to figure out what they were.
When I see arguments that the early solar system was populated by gods who did things for no apparent reason, it's just silly.

I am not assuming what they knew. I am pointing out that they observed things happening and wrote about them. I think that it is modern scholars who have made the claims about what they thought the Mesopotamians were writing about. I don't agree with much of what has been pointed out, and I have even mentioned my disagreement and stated what I have thought they were talking about in this thread.

What does gender have to do with it? Tiamat is a mythical character regardless of gender.

Some posters around here make a big deal out of gender issues.

As always, show me the evidence of your "heaven" and this "God" that supposedly started everything.

The nice thing about science is that it finally grew up and the scientific method was developed. I never said that scientists were never wrong. Of course they've been wrong about some things, and there will be many more instances of them being wrong. But modern science doesn't cling to the wrong things and insist they're right because "God/the Bible/tradition says so."

The evidence is all around you, and other than my own personal experience, which you seem to dismiss any ways, there is nothing out there that will change your mind, until in the future, evidence will be made known, that may give you what you are looking for. I would go so far to say that every religion has parts wrong, even though they claim to be dogmatic about them. I was just pointing out that one can use evidence put forward by science, to make dogmatic claims as well. The proof being that one accepts science as taking out all the false proofs, and only end up with the truth. I say that is impossible because there are unknowns that may become known to change everything that science currently claims as being true. If you think that science is the proof of what is true, then that is no different than a religion who claims the same thing. If a human throws out religion as being out of touch with reality, then one is giving up all the evidence that there is a spiritual existence that is just as real as the physical one. You claim to have studied different people groups who do not even have an established religion and yet what they experience is given different terms to explain things in concrete ways. Do you outright reject any claims that have been made? If so, then you are tossing aside evidence that is out of the realm of science on the mere fact that science cannot even test the evidence. I agree that accepting any religion or even experience may not be your proof. I have tried to claim that as well, and you have rejected my claim. I keep getting the sense that I am being put into a neat little box, so any thing I say can be refuted. But that is how science works, so I am not surprised.

Have you heard one of the "spiritual" explanations of thunder? "Oh, the angels are bowling in Heaven."

Um, no. That's not what causes thunder. It does a great disservice to tell a child a nonsense story instead of explaining the real cause.

Or take something with more serious ramifications - explaining to children where babies come from. One "spiritual" explanation goes thus: "Mommy and Daddy really wanted a child to love, so they prayed and God gave them a baby. That baby grew up to be you." Fast-forward ten years, and the girl who got told this story wonders why she got pregnant after having sex with her boyfriend: "But how could I be having a baby? I didn't pray for one!". It makes a hell of a lot more sense to explain human reproduction to the child - age-appropriately, of course, and before a pregnancy occurs. It's bizarre how some "religious right" people in my province get hysterical at the thought of their 9-10 year-old children being taught about human reproduction. "Tell them later! Like when they're 14 or 15!"

Sorry. If you wait that long, you might as well face the idea of possibly becoming a grandparent five or ten years too early.

Your examples of spiritual things are artificial human explanations. Why use them as representative of the actual spiritual reality? I could just as well make the point that there would have to be a God to even pray to, but that is totally different in why one would pray to that God to begin with. Your logic does not make sense, because the assumption that a girl failed to pray is pretty flimsy to say the least. Now if you had pointed out that the girl prayed before and continually during a sexual encounter that God prevent her from having a baby, that would make more sense. Or what about those who pray all the time, and never get a baby? None of those examples prove or disprove there is a God. In all cases the default assumption is that there already is a God. The example of the Parents getting a girl is God did it. What did God do that the girl failed to ask for? God did it in my example even though the girl demanded that it would not happen. In the case of God not doing it even though we demand it, like the rest do not necessarily mean that God did anything. Reproduction was built into the process by God, but how can we know that God has a say in every single time such an event occurs? Now religion may make a dogmatic claim about it, or some one may have even put it in writing as some sacred, "inspired" text. There are even times when in physical reality a doctor has made the claim that it is physically impossible. If it does happen that may be God, but it does not have to be, because the reality of it is that is the natural process, even if a human declares it physically impossible. The only thing that could make it a miracle would be if two people thousands of miles apart, would have a child together without any artificial physical human involvement. It would have to be done completely in the spiritual reality, and not the physical.

Here is an example: How do you resolve emotions to a mere physical reality? The brain is involved because there is sometimes a physical reaction to the reaction of the mind, but what causes us to get emotional in the first place regardless how we react? How can you claim it is just physical when logically there is nothing physical that explains all the wide variety of emotions. We react to each other in a spiritual way, that we dress up as emotional or even social, but it is still part of a reality that is not totally physical, but spiritual. I will grant you that some have a physical part that is lacking that causes the loss of any emotion at all. That does not disprove the spiritual part, but a disconnect from the spiritual component.

We have a lot of examples of how humans in developing AI attempt to implement emotions. The mere point that such an attempt has to be forced, points out a lack of physical reality in the process. Sure they can be "learned", even humans can master emotions. That is not the point. The point is that it is not a natural physical phenomenon, and societal development is hardly means to evolve all emotions that we have. Some are not even logical or rational. Some reactions, are even irrational, and go against the normal way they are supposed to work.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have yet to state when the Flood was. I do not have enough information to make a "dogmatic" claim, and already stated I will probably never make such a claim. Humans today hardly accept half of what has been put in the biblical account. Most people all over the world have mentioned an event, that does not necessarily prove nor disprove that it happened. You are the one who is putting dates when referencing my post.

I am referring to some of the things you said in other threads. You were quite insistent that the Flood really happened, and you were willing to move the goalposts in very "creative" ways, timewise, to try to convince me that it happened.

So science can change with new information, and you point out that I change my mind too much?

Science changes with new information, yes. You appear to change your mind on a whim.

I was not making a claim that the earth "was" a gas giant. It was the result of a gas giant and a terrestrial planet forming in the same location. Neither had the chance to fully form. Their impact caused earth and a mars size planet to form. This planet if it exist is the 9th planet out there somewhere, or it is not.

Link, please.

How can one rule out what is not, nor rule out what cannot be proven to not exist. It is like God and remains to be seen. Earth and a Mars size planet, then chased each other until they had an impact that resulted in two moons, and they had a final impact resulting in the current moon. I am not saying that is what happened. I am saying that is a model that I am comfortable with, until more data/evidence comes in.

What evidence do you have to support your ideas?

Sorry, but I have no imagination. I am just going with any evidence that current scientist feel free to share with the rest of the world. Perhaps all are waiting for that perfect revelation, but I am not placing my bets on scientific research. I just need a tangible point of reference to explain my acceptance for my own personal taste.

Except that there isn't any evidence for a lot of what you've been talking about.

I was merely pointing out that Tiamat is not just a goddess. It is not even just a term used for the earth, nor the earth being split, since it seems the solar disc was split. It describes a whole process of a forming solar system. I think Berzerker is getting there, but he keeps sticking to the point in Genesis 1, that he seems to think "says" the earth was split. I am not speaking for him, just pointing out what I am trying to figure out concerning his claims. It is called feedback.

I detect goalpost-moving again. Now you're saying "Tiamat" is how the solar system was formed.

Berzerker is obsessed with hammered bracelets, which as I've pointed out, don't resemble the asteroid belt in the slightest.

I cannot "show" you proof. Proof is how you subjectively process the evidence. There is plenty of evidence already known, and there is evidence that is unknown, that will eventually be known. I cannot manipulate your mind, and prove anything, as it seems we may never come to any agreement. Unless you think that proof and evidence is interchangeable and there is no need to use proof for something other than what you consider as evidence. Clearly there is some evidence that I use as proof, and you use the same evidence as your proof, but we do not come to the same conclusion, ie proof we are looking for. It would seem that we interpret the evidence differently and you are making the judgment call that I am wrong.

Fine, substitute the word "evidence" instead of proof. Sorry for my sloppy wording. It comes down to the same thing, though. Show me the evidence that this Tiamat (goddess) was real, and not merely the invention of an ancient Babylonian trying to explain things he didn't understand.

I am not assuming what they knew. I am pointing out that they observed things happening and wrote about them. I think that it is modern scholars who have made the claims about what they thought the Mesopotamians were writing about. I don't agree with much of what has been pointed out, and I have even mentioned my disagreement and stated what I have thought they were talking about in this thread.

Yes, of course they saw things and wrote about them - according to their then-current understanding.

Some posters around here make a big deal out of gender issues.

Why is that a problem? Gender issues are very prevalent in Western society now, and there are some who are trying to address them in other regions of the world as well.

The evidence is all around you, and other than my own personal experience, which you seem to dismiss any ways, there is nothing out there that will change your mind, until in the future, evidence will be made known, that may give you what you are looking for.

I guess you'd better come here and point it out to me, then. About as far as I ever get are trickster gods (aka Murphy's Law) and I do take some emotional comfort in the Rainbow Bridge Poem... even though the first can be explained either through observation/discovery or unfortunate coincidence, and the second is emotionally comforting, but without evidence that it's true.

I was just pointing out that one can use evidence put forward by science, to make dogmatic claims as well. The proof being that one accepts science as taking out all the false proofs, and only end up with the truth. I say that is impossible because there are unknowns that may become known to change everything that science currently claims as being true.

Yes, of course there are unknowns. But as Richard Dawkins says, there are some things that aren't going to change. You're not going to wake up tomorrow and float off into space because gravity doesn't work anymore. If you go up to the top of a cliff or building, not wearing a parachute or any other flying equipment, you are going to fall to the ground and at the very least, end up injured.

If you think that science is the proof of what is true, then that is no different than a religion who claims the same thing.

Science is prepared to throw out what is discovered to be untrue. Religion doesn't do that (or at least some don't; apparently there are some Christians who now accept the theory of evolution).

You claim to have studied different people groups who do not even have an established religion and yet what they experience is given different terms to explain things in concrete ways.

I looked up the term "people groups" that you keep using, and it's something to do with the "Joshua Project" and evangelizing. The "groups" are organized according to language, which is, I suppose, why deaf people are included as a "people group"; they use some variety of sign language.

I was never part of any evangelical project (unless you want to count the few weeks when I was 8 and my aunt tried to get me into the Pentecostal Church), and I have no idea why you would claim that I said I studied "people groups" with no established religion.

I keep getting the sense that I am being put into a neat little box, so any thing I say can be refuted. But that is how science works, so I am not surprised.

Science works via the scientific method. "Neat little boxes" are not part of that.

Your examples of spiritual things are artificial human explanations. Why use them as representative of the actual spiritual reality? I could just as well make the point that there would have to be a God to even pray to, but that is totally different in why one would pray to that God to begin with. Your logic does not make sense, because the assumption that a girl failed to pray is pretty flimsy to say the least. Now if you had pointed out that the girl prayed before and continually during a sexual encounter that God prevent her from having a baby, that would make more sense. Or what about those who pray all the time, and never get a baby? None of those examples prove or disprove there is a God. In all cases the default assumption is that there already is a God. The example of the Parents getting a girl is God did it. What did God do that the girl failed to ask for? God did it in my example even though the girl demanded that it would not happen. In the case of God not doing it even though we demand it, like the rest do not necessarily mean that God did anything. Reproduction was built into the process by God, but how can we know that God has a say in every single time such an event occurs? Now religion may make a dogmatic claim about it, or some one may have even put it in writing as some sacred, "inspired" text. There are even times when in physical reality a doctor has made the claim that it is physically impossible. If it does happen that may be God, but it does not have to be, because the reality of it is that is the natural process, even if a human declares it physically impossible. The only thing that could make it a miracle would be if two people thousands of miles apart, would have a child together without any artificial physical human involvement. It would have to be done completely in the spiritual reality, and not the physical.

Way to completely miss the point.

Giving a child a "god" explanation (ie. mystical, fanciful, nonscientific and therefore not real) for where babies come from might prevent the parent from being embarrassed about explaining sex to the child (my own family gave me two different stories, neither of which made any sense; thank goodness for the provincially-mandated sex-ed classes for Grade 5/6 girls to explain this stuff since my own family was basically useless at it), but it's not doing the child any favors when she goes through puberty (or is sexually assaulted) and becomes pregnant and doesn't know why. My example was that some parents tell children that "babies come from God" and so there's no connection in the child's mind between sex and babies. If they parents say they were "given" a baby "because they prayed for one" and the girl gets pregnant without having prayed for a baby, of course she's going to be confused. This is, of course, assuming that the girl doesn't have the benefit of a school curriculum that includes age-appropriate sex education.

Here is an example: How do you resolve emotions to a mere physical reality?

Ask anyone who is on medication/receiving counseling for clinical depression. Fifteen years ago I had the not-remotely-fun experience of trying to explain this to my mother and uncle and dad. My mother and uncle were of the view that depressed people are weak-minded and need to "just snap out of it". My dad was willing to try to understand the science behind this as it was explained to me. "Brain chemistry not working right" is something that makes sense to me - and it was a relief to know that it really wasn't my fault.

We have a lot of examples of how humans in developing AI attempt to implement emotions. The mere point that such an attempt has to be forced, points out a lack of physical reality in the process. Sure they can be "learned", even humans can master emotions. That is not the point. The point is that it is not a natural physical phenomenon, and societal development is hardly means to evolve all emotions that we have. Some are not even logical or rational. Some reactions, are even irrational, and go against the normal way they are supposed to work.

Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos series, mentioned the "reptilian part of our brain" that governs the more instinctive, more primitive emotions we have, such as anger, and the impulse to be aggressive.

I'll be honest; it gives me the creeps to think that they may be able to invent a machine that can achieve real emotions and not just simulate them. Call it my instinctive rejection of the "other".

 

[timtofly]

Science changes with new information, yes. You appear to change your mind on a whim.

I have learned much in this thread.

Link, please.

For what? Bezerker just gave a link.

What evidence do you have to support your ideas?

Except that there isn't any evidence for a lot of what you've been talking about.

You want me to list almost 50 years of experience?

You probably should not mix the meanings of evidence and proof together. We both have the same evidence if we have read much of current science. We just interpret it in different ways. To say that one way is right and the other is wrong, is being dogmatic about your interpretation.

I realize that you feel science as delivering you truth that "does not change". Then you turn around and tell me that science can change if new evidence is found, that leads scientist to drop some evidence as being wrong. Which is it? Is science unchangeable or changeable? I grant it that the laws of the universe are pretty much unchangeable, but that is not a given either. The universe is expanding and we are still trying to reason out what makes that happen. I am not sure that humans can state their version of the origin of the universe is an unchangeable law though. I doubt that will not stop them from trying. Some have already changed theory to mean the same thing as fact, when it suits, while other theories are just theories and not actual facts. Probably to avoid calling a theory a law, one calls a theory a fact, and avoids the point that no law can be changed with new information. Theories and facts can still change and be discarded as long as science remains true in it's figuring out the unknown.

I detect goalpost-moving again. Now you're saying "Tiamat" is how the solar system was formed.

Berzerker is obsessed with hammered bracelets, which as I've pointed out, don't resemble the asteroid belt in the slightest.

I mentioned that back in post #826. It has been mentioned several times since then.

I have posted a couple of different scenarios of what the Enuma Elish was trying to say. I already pointed out that the "hammered bracelet" was introduced in the Latin Translation of the Bible. The Hebrews never viewed it that way, but Berzerker and Sitchin keep trying to take a Latin usage and travel back in time to make it fit what the Hebrew account said. The Hebrew concept was a "stretching out" or expansion like pulling a curtain that is bunched up and pulling it out to it's full extent. It is true that when one hammers bronze metal, it becomes flattened and spreads out, but that concept went more along the lines of the then current Latin view that there were fixed spheres with the earth in the center. If they had any inkling that the asteroid belt was a fixed area, we were not given any indication of it. According to them the fixed area was the zodiac. Today the stretching is likened to rubber, as in a balloon. Even though the skin of a balloon is still stretched, it is a thin firm separation boundary of what is being separated. That is why I interpret that point that the sky was stretched out holding the water above the sky. Modern scholars have just left that out all together. I also associate that with the whole solar system going through the process of stretching at the same time, as it would make no sense for just the earth to be going through the process and nothing else in the solar system. I am not sure if scientist today even take stretching as part of their model, or if it would answer any of the questions some are looking for. I don't think they have yet settled on anything declarative but are still "hammering" out all the nuances.

Fine, substitute the word "evidence" instead of proof. Sorry for my sloppy wording. It comes down to the same thing, though. Show me the evidence that this Tiamat (goddess) was real, and not merely the invention of an ancient Babylonian trying to explain things he didn't understand.

Yes, of course they saw things and wrote about them - according to their then-current understanding.

I was not correcting any wording or even meaning. We have already gone over the point that the ancients viewed "primordial" as being chaotic like an ocean, and some misinterpret that as proving there was water before anything else in existence, and we explained that the "big bang" would not allow water to be formed, nor would the universe as an ocean of water survive as a physical body of water during the "big bang".

Example: The whole solar system was called Tiamat/Earth. It was a body of water. It was split (a nearby supernova); caused the earth/solar system to start forming. It was actually the newly forming sun with an accreting disc of gas and dust. Earth/Tiamat/solar system was split in half (where the current asteroid belt is). The forming planets were part of Tiamat/earth/solar system, mentioned as the "children" who would not settle down. Reaaallly big leap in logic. Tiamat wanted to destroy everything. That is the reasoning why the solar disc was assumingly "split" at the asteroid belt. It was to prevent the solar system from being destroyed. This is when Tiamat/earth/solar disc was "cut" in half by an unknown "planet". As far as I can tell. Tiamat was never a "worshipped" goddess. She was destroyed, and the Earth probably became EA. Later Gaia to keep in the "goddess" tradition. Somehow the Earth which was near this split was pushed to the center as part of the split, and the sun was placed in the "line up" where the earth should be. The Mesopotamians and later Babylonians mapped out the patterns of Jupiter, Venus, and then Mars.

This all begs the question how and why did they write an account of all this planetary action, or did they just invent the story and coincidentally it matches the life of the solar system? Was it an attempt at science fiction, fantasy, or evolution?

I looked up the term "people groups" that you keep using, and it's something to do with the "Joshua Project" and evangelizing. The "groups" are organized according to language, which is, I suppose, why deaf people are included as a "people group"; they use some variety of sign language..

I was referring to whatever group of Native Americans you keep bringing up.

Way to completely miss the point.

Giving a child a "god" explanation (ie. mystical, fanciful, nonscientific and therefore not real) for where babies come from might prevent the parent from being embarrassed about explaining sex to the child (my own family gave me two different stories, neither of which made any sense; thank goodness for the provincially-mandated sex-ed classes for Grade 5/6 girls to explain this stuff since my own family was basically useless at it), but it's not doing the child any favors when she goes through puberty (or is sexually assaulted) and becomes pregnant and doesn't know why. My example was that some parents tell children that "babies come from God" and so there's no connection in the child's mind between sex and babies. If they parents say they were "given" a baby "because they prayed for one" and the girl gets pregnant without having prayed for a baby, of course she's going to be confused. This is, of course, assuming that the girl doesn't have the benefit of a school curriculum that includes age-appropriate sex education.

So you subconsciously mentioned the word "prayer" to throw me off the point? And No, the confusing part is God giving females a baby. If you want me to get the point, don't even mention prayer. Because not doing something is not relative to another thing happening, as I pointed out in my reply. Associating "prayer" and an unwanted pregnancy is not a logical thought process, nor is it normal. A parent just saying that God gives a baby is sufficient enough to avoid the embarrassment. Even Catholics teach that, and even in incest and rape, that it was still "Of God" even though the horror of the event takes center stage. The act against the girl was not of God, but the result, if there is one, was the natural process that God put in place. The prayer part comes in if a couple is trying to have a child, or they just want God's will to be done, but associating prayer with teaching a child about sex would not be natural nor realistic. I would have to agree with you that parents who do not know the difference, are very wrong in their approach. Now praying to keep oneself chaste is a different matter, and if a person is raped, it is not their fault nor to an extent God's fault, for not answering a prayer. It is the sin and burden of the person who did the action. Even though some religious groups twist that bit around, to excuse injust actions. Prayer is an act of self control, not quite the ability of control over other peoples actions. Both "deliver us from evil" and "forgiving others" is part of the model prayer. While evil is the result of some actions done to us, the means to forgive is part of that equation. It is easiest to hurt others, it gets harder when one is hurt, but the hardest task is forgiving others. Deliver us from evil can be taken as "keep us from harm", but coming after, "deliver us from temptation" could also be read as "keep us from harming others". While hurting others is the easiest to do, it is the hardest thing to avoid, unless you avoid all society, and can take care of yourself without any outside help.

Prayer is a sacred and solemn attempt at finding out God's will. Rape and incest are sins that are never part of God's will. Any religion that puts forth the notion that it is the victims fault is sick and demented. Society should never put women down and place them in a position that they are sex symbols and then blame them when they are, when a person cannot control themselves. And even stressing modesty to an act of control and belittlement, is reverse sex symbolism. It places too much emphasis on letting the male do what they please and blame the women for not being under control. There is modesty and then acts of slavery in either direction.

I would also point out that sex for mere pleasure is also misleading, and rape is not a pleasurable experience for at least one party. Teaching young people that it is ok to be free and have unbridled sex and no one will get hurt is just as troublesome as pointing out, "God did it". That may be an exaggeration, but to say they are "going to do it anyway" and handing them a condemn, because sex "feels good" seems to be an "ok thing".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have learned much in this thread.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been the science and history.

For what? Bezerker just gave a link.

I've noticed that you and Berzerker are not always on the same page, metaphorically speaking, and that you like to veer off onto some really weird tangents. This "gas giant" thing is your argument, so I'd appreciate your link(s).

You want me to list almost 50 years of experience?

I can match you those 50 years and a few more of not having any evidence for God's existence.

You probably should not mix the meanings of evidence and proof together. We both have the same evidence if we have read much of current science. We just interpret it in different ways. To say that one way is right and the other is wrong, is being dogmatic about your interpretation.

I realize that you feel science as delivering you truth that "does not change". Then you turn around and tell me that science can change if new evidence is found, that leads scientist to drop some evidence as being wrong. Which is it? Is science unchangeable or changeable? I grant it that the laws of the universe are pretty much unchangeable, but that is not a given either. The universe is expanding and we are still trying to reason out what makes that happen. I am not sure that humans can state their version of the origin of the universe is an unchangeable law though. I doubt that will not stop them from trying. Some have already changed theory to mean the same thing as fact, when it suits, while other theories are just theories and not actual facts. Probably to avoid calling a theory a law, one calls a theory a fact, and avoids the point that no law can be changed with new information. Theories and facts can still change and be discarded as long as science remains true in it's figuring out the unknown.

It's not dogmatic if one is obviously wrong.

And please stop tapdancing about when and how science changes. There are many things we used to think were true, but over the years - due to new observations, experiments, and tools that enable more accurate data to be gathered, the scientific knowledge we have changes from the wrong to the more accurate.

Not everyone accepts the new information, of course, or even knows about it. Some doctors are apt to cling to old ideas, which is why more patients need to do their own research and, if necessary, shove it under their doctors' noses and tell them they want to have such-and-such a test done or try a certain treatment. It took me getting into a public argument with my doctor in the hospital to get her to order a test for a problem that had bothered me for years. Her "solution" had been "Don't get stressed." The real solution was a course of antibiotics, a prescription that I'll be on my whole life, and a change in diet.

As I said, though, some things are not going to change. A person stepping off a cliff (in Earth-normal gravity) without a parachute or other equipment is still going to fall, no matter if it's 10,000 years ago, the present day, or any time in the future. That's just how it works, unless humans develop wings or some other anatomical change that allows us to fly.

I mentioned that back in post #826. It has been mentioned several times since then.

I have posted a couple of different scenarios of what the Enuma Elish was trying to say. I already pointed out that the "hammered bracelet" was introduced in the Latin Translation of the Bible. The Hebrews never viewed it that way, but Berzerker and Sitchin keep trying to take a Latin usage and travel back in time to make it fit what the Hebrew account said. The Hebrew concept was a "stretching out" or expansion like pulling a curtain that is bunched up and pulling it out to it's full extent. It is true that when one hammers bronze metal, it becomes flattened and spreads out, but that concept went more along the lines of the then current Latin view that there were fixed spheres with the earth in the center. If they had any inkling that the asteroid belt was a fixed area, we were not given any indication of it. According to them the fixed area was the zodiac. Today the stretching is likened to rubber, as in a balloon. Even though the skin of a balloon is still stretched, it is a thin firm separation boundary of what is being separated. That is why I interpret that point that the sky was stretched out holding the water above the sky. Modern scholars have just left that out all together. I also associate that with the whole solar system going through the process of stretching at the same time, as it would make no sense for just the earth to be going through the process and nothing else in the solar system. I am not sure if scientist today even take stretching as part of their model, or if it would answer any of the questions some are looking for. I don't think they have yet settled on anything declarative but are still "hammering" out all the nuances.

I take the Enuma Elish about as seriously as I take Genesis. Which is not at all. It's a fanciful story, but not remotely scientific.

I was not correcting any wording or even meaning. We have already gone over the point that the ancients viewed "primordial" as being chaotic like an ocean, and some misinterpret that as proving there was water before anything else in existence, and we explained that the "big bang" would not allow water to be formed, nor would the universe as an ocean of water survive as a physical body of water during the "big bang".

Example: The whole solar system was called Tiamat/Earth. It was a body of water. It was split (a nearby supernova); caused the earth/solar system to start forming. It was actually the newly forming sun with an accreting disc of gas and dust. Earth/Tiamat/solar system was split in half (where the current asteroid belt is). The forming planets were part of Tiamat/earth/solar system, mentioned as the "children" who would not settle down. Reaaallly big leap in logic. Tiamat wanted to destroy everything. That is the reasoning why the solar disc was assumingly "split" at the asteroid belt. It was to prevent the solar system from being destroyed. This is when Tiamat/earth/solar disc was "cut" in half by an unknown "planet". As far as I can tell. Tiamat was never a "worshipped" goddess. She was destroyed, and the Earth probably became EA. Later Gaia to keep in the "goddess" tradition. Somehow the Earth which was near this split was pushed to the center as part of the split, and the sun was placed in the "line up" where the earth should be. The Mesopotamians and later Babylonians mapped out the patterns of Jupiter, Venus, and then Mars.

First Tiamat was a goddess, then it was Earth, then it was the process of forming the solar system, now you're saying it was all of that, plus the whole solar system? So what about the Sun - didn't they have a separate word for that? I keep waiting for the kitchen sink to show up...

This all begs the question how and why did they write an account of all this planetary action, or did they just invent the story and coincidentally it matches the life of the solar system? Was it an attempt at science fiction, fantasy, or evolution?

It doesn't match the life of the solar system. And what does evolution have to do with this? I assume you're referring to evolution on Earth, not stellar evolution - which the Babylonians wouldn't have known about, not having the tools at hand (or the tools to make the tools) to even begin learning what we know about that.

I was referring to whatever group of Native Americans you keep bringing up.

I looked up "people groups" and the page was full of references to the "Joshua Project" and evangelism. I have never mentioned anything of that sort at all.

The anthropology courses I'm referring to emphasized North America - everything from the Arctic to the Panama Canal (which didn't exist back then; I mention that as a modern geographical reference). The papers I wrote in my cultural anthropology courses were about the Navajo, Hopi, and Aztecs. The papers for my physical anthropology courses were on dating methods (carbon-14, dendrochronology, and varve dating).

So you subconsciously mentioned the word "prayer" to throw me off the point?

No, I deliberately mentioned the word "prayer" in the expectation that you would understand what I was talking about. Evidently I should not have had that expectation.

I don't know how to make it any clearer:

Girl (age 6): Mommy, where do babies come from?

Mother: From God. Your daddy and I prayed for a child and God gave you to us. The baby grew up to be you.

Girl: Oh. (thinks, okay, babies only come if you pray to God and ask for one)

Ten years later, during which time the parents have either homeschooled their daughter or not allowed her to take part in the public sex education classes because "parents know best"...

Doctor: You're pregnant.

Girl (age 16): I don't understand. My parents told me that to get a baby, you have to pray to God. I didn't pray to God, so how could I be pregnant?

Doctor:

And No, the confusing part is God giving females a baby. If you want me to get the point, don't even mention prayer. Because not doing something is not relative to another thing happening, as I pointed out in my reply. Associating "prayer" and an unwanted pregnancy is not a logical thought process, nor is it normal.

Bingo. And yet some parents teach this illogical association to their children because they don't want the child learning "immoral" things at school.

A parent just saying that God gives a baby is sufficient enough to avoid the embarrassment.

That might be sufficient for a 4-year-old. But some girls are going through puberty at age 9 nowadays. They need the real information, not the story told for the parent's benefit.

I would also point out that sex for mere pleasure is also misleading, and rape is not a pleasurable experience for at least one party. Teaching young people that it is ok to be free and have unbridled sex and no one will get hurt is just as troublesome as pointing out, "God did it". That may be an exaggeration, but to say they are "going to do it anyway" and handing them a condemn, because sex "feels good" seems to be an "ok thing".

Some kids will "do it anyway". At that age, biology often overrides logic and common sense. So with this realization, isn't it better that kids be informed about the realities of what they're doing and taught how to keep themselves as safe as they can manage?

 

[timtofly]

It's not dogmatic if one is obviously wrong.

Being dogmatic is claiming your viewpoint is the only correct one. Views are only obviously wrong, sometimes, and not always, especially if new information comes along that points out it was not completely obvious.

And please stop tapdancing about when and how science changes. There are many things we used to think were true, but over the years - due to new observations, experiments, and tools that enable more accurate data to be gathered, the scientific knowledge we have changes from the wrong to the more accurate.

You refuse to be dogmatic, and then accuse me of tapdancing?

It doesn't match the life of the solar system. And what does evolution have to do with this? I assume you're referring to evolution on Earth, not stellar evolution - which the Babylonians wouldn't have known about, not having the tools at hand (or the tools to make the tools) to even begin learning what we know about that.

The Enuma Elish covers both stellar evolution, and biological. It tells how the planets form, and how the "gods" mixed the blood of different species to create a "new" one. The stellar evolution was natural. The biological evolution is artificial. I am not sure why the ancients have to be just as precise as modern science to show ability to point out similar concepts? Are you saying we should not even call the Enuma Elish a creation account? You seem to indicate that the science of last century is no longer science but has been replaced by current views. Now, (to you) they are just plain wrong, "obviously".

The Enuma Elish is a source on what the ancients thought. Now you say it is of no value? I agree that it hardly compares to the science knowledge of today, but you have "dogmatically" rejected it. According to you, the ancients were all wrong. They had no ability whatsoever to make observations and record them? We cannot even observe things the way they were back then. We think we can re-create events, but claiming that we are right about our creations, can err if we get to the place where we are always right and can never be wrong. If you keep insisting that science can never be wrong, what should we call that?

The anthropology courses I'm referring to emphasized North America - everything from the Arctic to the Panama Canal (which didn't exist back then; I mention that as a modern geographical reference). The papers I wrote in my cultural anthropology courses were about the Navajo, Hopi, and Aztecs. The papers for my physical anthropology courses were on dating methods (carbon-14, dendrochronology, and varve dating).

So in your studies, they never mentioned the "spiritual" views of the Navajo, Hopi, and Aztecs?

No, I deliberately mentioned the word "prayer" in the expectation that you would understand what I was talking about. Evidently I should not have had that expectation.

So telling a child that a baby comes from God is ok? I already agree that using "prayer" is wrong. Prayer is just as much of an expectation, as any other expectation. I guess if one does not expect something will happen, then that is a sure way that it will?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You refuse to be dogmatic, and then accuse me of tapdancing?

First you accuse me of being dogmatic, and now you're complaining that I'm not? Make up your mind.

You remind me of every ID'er, YEC, and other anti-science person I've ever interacted with online. The chief criticism of science seems to be "How can anybody trust it when it constantly changes?". The point is that the scientific method is what guides researchers. There's a procedure to be followed. A chemist doesn't just go into a lab and throw a batch of pretty-colored liquids into a flask, turn on the Bunsen burner, and wait to see what happens.

Science is not a religion. It deals with hypotheses, observations, measurements, and trying to figure out what those mean. It's a procedure, a means to discovering new information. If that means discarding what was previously thought to be true, so be it.

The Enuma Elish covers both stellar evolution, and biological. It tells how the planets form, and how the "gods" mixed the blood of different species to create a "new" one. The stellar evolution was natural. The biological evolution is artificial. I am not sure why the ancients have to be just as precise as modern science to show ability to point out similar concepts? Are you saying we should not even call the Enuma Elish a creation account? You seem to indicate that the science of last century is no longer science but has been replaced by current views. Now, (to you) they are just plain wrong, "obviously".

So if I were to read the Enuma Elish, I'd find an explanation of absorption lines and the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram? And the periodic table of elements, with an explanation of how everything heavier than helium was created in supernova explosions of the first generation of supergiant stars?

So now you're claiming that biological evolution is "artificial." There's natural selection, and there's artificial selection. Artificial selection is what humans tend to engage in - trying to breed new varieties of plants and mammals. Natural selection usually takes longer. Or sometimes it doesn't - consider the problem of "superbugs" that are resistant to antibiotics, for example. That's something humans can observe in real time.

The Enuma Elish is a source on what the ancients thought. Now you say it is of no value? I agree that it hardly compares to the science knowledge of today, but you have "dogmatically" rejected it. According to you, the ancients were all wrong. They had no ability whatsoever to make observations and record them? We cannot even observe things the way they were back then. We think we can re-create events, but claiming that we are right about our creations, can err if we get to the place where we are always right and can never be wrong. If you keep insisting that science can never be wrong, what should we call that?

It's a story. As literature, it has value. As a mentifact, it has value. As an attempt to explain science, it's nonsense.

Do stop accusing me of saying the ancients were incapable of observing and recording. Of course they were. But saying it's objectively true makes as much sense as telling a modern-day child that thunder happens because the angels in heaven are having a bowling tournament. Of course that's nonsense, because we have figured out what causes thunder and lightning.

So in your studies, they never mentioned the "spiritual" views of the Navajo, Hopi, and Aztecs?

I guess you missed my posts where I mentioned the Hero Twins/Twin Monster-Slayers and the story that explains the physical topography of the American Southwest. Of course my studies included the traditional spiritual views (pre-Christianity).

So telling a child that a baby comes from God is ok? I already agree that using "prayer" is wrong. Prayer is just as much of an expectation, as any other expectation. I guess if one does not expect something will happen, then that is a sure way that it will?

NO. Why do you insist that what I said is the opposite of what I actually said? If a kid asked me where babies come from, I would never tell the kid that they "come from God."

Yes, I realize that every parent has his/her own preferences on when/how to teach children about human reproduction. I've no idea what the public education system is like where you live, but here there are provinces that are in the midst of changing their curriculum (or have recently changed it) and there are some parents who are absolutely livid about it - claiming that the schools are "promoting an immoral lifestyle". And then some of these same parents will wonder, in the future, why their little darlings ended up pregnant or infected, or confused and distressed because they realize they're gay, transgender, etc.

Denying children information that could prevent them from making a life-altering mistake or from understanding themselves better is not doing those children any favor at all.

 

[Berzerker]

The 'curse' of the tree of knowledge is the burden of knowing when you've done wrong, having to live with the knowledge of your sin. Eve's burden was increased pain giving birth and Adam's was tilling the land for food...

Thats 3 examples of evolution in Genesis

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The 'curse' of the tree of knowledge is the burden of knowing when you've done wrong, having to live with the knowledge of your sin. Eve's burden was increased pain giving birth and Adam's was tilling the land for food...

Thats 3 examples of evolution in Genesis

Funny, I don't remember any of that from either my Grade 7 science class (in which we learned about taxonomy) or in my high school biology classes in which we learned about evolution and human reproduction. Actually, the nurses who did the sex-ed classes seem to have forgotten about it, too.

 

[Lexicus]

The 'curse' of the tree of knowledge is the burden of knowing when you've done wrong, having to live with the knowledge of your sin. Eve's burden was increased pain giving birth and Adam's was tilling the land for food...

Thats 3 examples of evolution in Genesis

"Evolution" with square quotes about a mile long.

 

[Arakhor]

The 'curse' of the tree of knowledge is the burden of knowing when you've done wrong, having to live with the knowledge of your sin. Eve's burden was increased pain giving birth and Adam's was tilling the land for food...

Thats 3 examples of evolution in Genesis

Even if we grant you Eve as a possible example, you're going to have to explain the other two.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Evolution" as in "change" obviously. Not in the Darwinian sense.

 

[Arakhor]

That sounds like an entirely meaningless statement then.

 

[timtofly]

Because Darwinian change would be leaps in logic?

 

[Berzerker]

Funny, I don't remember any of that from either my Grade 7 science class (in which we learned about taxonomy) or in my high school biology classes in which we learned about evolution and human reproduction. Actually, the nurses who did the sex-ed classes seem to have forgotten about it, too.

I posted a link suggesting the extreme pain afflicting anatomically modern women in child birth is a 'recent' development stemming from babies with bigger heads and shoulders.

Even if we grant you Eve as a possible example, you're going to have to explain the other two.

Farming followed eons of hunting and gathering and as the knowledge of good and evil increases so does the burden of sin - guilt.

 

[Berzerker]

The Earth could have been much larger if not a 'gas giant'... If it formed at the snow line it was surrounded by volatiles. The collisions ~>4 bya might have blown off an extensive atmosphere and vaporized much of its water. We'd need a better understanding of the cores of gas giants.

What's your take on it?

It seems strange that they should remain so hidden from modern society.

I dont know... Thats one of the main problems I have with the theory. Like how could human life evolve on a planet with an aphelion beyond Pluto

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Farming followed eons of hunting and gathering and as the knowledge of good and evil increases so does the burden of sin - guilt.

"Sin" is not a scientific term and therefore pointless.

I dont know... Thats one of the main problems I have with the theory. Like how could human life evolve on a planet with an aphelion beyond Pluto

Oh, please.

You're the one constantly preaching about the "snow line". You're not going to have humans evolving on a planet that spends very little time in the "goldilocks zone." Even if this so-called planet exists, which hasn't been proven.