Hi Guys,

Great debate going on here, so different to most of the rest of the internet

I'd just like to mention a book that I have just read called "The Moses Legacy" by Graham Phillips, in which the author attempts to recreate the bible in history, specifically Moses. According to the author Moses was two people spread across several decades, and the Mountain of God is not Mount Sinai, but a much more ancient site in the ancient kingdom of Edom (Eden anybody?). To me, it's these authors who show little or no religious or scientific bias that can go a long way to proving (or disproving) the origins of our religions and the Bible in particular.

As for Creationism, I personally would not like my son to be taught this UNLESS it is stated that it is a theory NOT fact (in my opinion not likely due to the religious bias of a lot of Creationists), just as most Science teachers that I have known have stated that Darwin's Theory is just that a Theory.

I hope I haven't butted in too much, but I thought I would put in my tuppence to the debate.

Thanks for a riveting read, keep it up

Shando

PS: I've just joined the community, and am looking forward to making many interesting things with Gamestudio (I'll definitely be upgrading when I have some spare cash, and the Aussie Dollar has recovered a bit against the Greenback !!!!!!).

Welcome to the forums.



Yeah, I've heard about that theory before. It's definitely something that sounds quite plausible to some extent and interesting for sure. In a somewhat similar fashion there have been many more studies about biblical characters, for example about the importance of Mary.

Edom doesn't seem to refer to the biblical Eden though, but instead to early Jordan in the middle-east. I have to say though, depending on how far you look into the history of the entire group of biblical stories... Eden can mean many things, from a certain place between the constellations, to just about any random good looking and fertile place on earth,

Cheers

didn't we just listen to a lengthy lecture about the difference between fact and theory?

Nobody is free from bias. Its just the impression they try to create. The idea of the Bible being true is not even in the realm of possibility for these 'scientists'. The idea of evolution being true is a foregone conclusion in todays science. No research whatsoever is being done to investigate any other alternatives. Evolution is accepted with 100% faith in all disciplines, while more mathematically solid models such as gravity and particle physics are constantly being tested and retested. Why dont they question or test evolution? Because in doing so they have to admit the possibility of a creator, which therefore makes them accountable for their actions.

agreed, It's more or less become a scientists' religion. The reason I speak so harshly against it is because of this reason. As for gravity, one mentioned that gravity is not proven.....Gravity is a LAW not THEORY you can see the effects of gravity very plainly, but evolution is theoretical and has not been ABSOLUTELY proven. Being a theory is not problem, there are lots of theories like the Big Bang, that sound great, but too much faith shouldn't be put in them as they are theories. The only things that are absolute (and not entirely absolute) in science are laws. We know that laws work, we don't necessarily know how, but we know they work. This is the difference between theory and law. Although a theory cannot be said to be false upright (depending on evidence that supports the theory and how valid the evidence is) it can't be totally discounted, however, it can't be totally proven either. Evolution is one such theory that the evidence is questionable, and cannot be proven 100%, the fact that other considerations such as "this may be another creature that died out" or "this one could have had problems in birth" are not even looked into is what bothers me, the moment the bones that are used as evidence are found, they are counted as being evolution without second thought.

This is NOT open-minded science! The reason such people as Darwin and Einstein are counted as great scientific minds is because they didn't just see evidence and immediately think "well, this must be this theories explanation...well, we're done here". NO! E=MC² was not developed in a short time. It took continuous equations and testing to see IF it COULD be possible. The equation and theory attached to it are pure genius, but it is still theory because it cannot be proven with modern day science, so there is not ABSOLUTE that you could go back in time IF you could go lightspeed. Einstein theorized well, and was one of the most genius minds that we know of BUT, that being said alot of his work is theory. E=MC² contributed to making the atom bomb, so once again, although there is evidence to support the equation, since all grounds around it cannot be covered it is a theory.

Like I said, a theory is not a bad thing but, it must have evidence AND must be tested continuously, or it stays a theory and is never proven nor disproven. I'm just saying the evidence is questionable, and it is. It's about as questionable as most of our early AD and BC history.

@PHeMoX: to answer some stuff, I may not post much more here, but if you have more you wish to debate, we will

"Same here and thanks. I definitely like a good open minded discussion instead of aggressive mud fighting as if we're still chimps."

Your genius is showing

"China basically has no freedom of religion, so it's difficult to say what the average Chinese thinks of Buddhism or any religion for that matter."

Then you're kind of agreeing with me

"Not really as history has shown time and time again that historic documents are often quite unreliable. Mainly because the one who lives is obviously the one able to write history. Many kings in the past have bragged so incredibly much that it's difficult to take them serious when it comes to counting taxes (something that's difficult to brag about when it's simple documentation for government purposes)."

That COULD be said about history, however, on that side. It supports the idea of having creationism and bible history. We teach alot of BC and early AD stuff, it's just as questionable as you say the bible is.

"If you find only one chariot in the Dead Sea, where hundreds or perhaps even thousands should have been... something tells me the story is wrong."

The question is, how did that one get there? Sombody was just drivin' along and "Hey, what's that water doin' over thar...come on horsey, lets go fer a swim" ( lol ) The Dead Sea isn't exactly great at making "fossils" (so to speak) and that did happen a LONG time ago.

"And the Jews stole it from the Egyptians who stole it from the Sumerians. There's a whole line of religions using the same old stories. Christ-like main characters included!"

That depends on the literature, some early books (old testament) were in and around Egypt and Sumeria, however, books such as the Gospels were written by Jews in Israel. MOST of the bible was written by Jews, not all, but most.

"Yes, the Torah is older, but again it was based on the ancient Egyptian religion(s) and other religions. The fact that the books are old doesn't really mean a thing to be honest with you. Also, apparently it doesn't make your eyebrows frown knowing that Christianity copied so incredibly much from the Torah?"

Not at all, Judaism and Christianity are more-or-less the same religion, the Jews just didn't accept Jesus Christ, they are still waiting on their king. Other than this difference we both serve the same God, "Jehovah" "Yahweh".

In fact, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy make sense to have been taken from the Egyptians, Moses was an Egyptian turned Jewish. His line was Hebrew, but he lived in Egypt, this also supports where they were found.

"I know you never said that, but in my opinion simple logic demands an answer to this paradox. I'm very open minded about this though, as the universe doesn't have to make sense according to logic or be still tangible when going down the rabbit hole deep enough so to speak. There are several points from which we have to admit that 'we just don't know yet'."

True, but I would rather believe what God and the Bible says. Simply put, God is something you have to experience to truly believe, and once you have it opens your mind to what he says.

"The coming into existence of our universe wasn't a coincidence. Forget about people that talk about 'chance' and 'chance of life to come into existence'. It's pretty much valueless crap as long as we do not have more answers. Like for example is our planet the only one with life? And so on and so forth."

I agree, that is why I do not agree with evolution, evolution relies on "chance" as being why everything came about. Forgive me, but this place is TOO perfectly designed to be mere chance, it took more than a single cell organism to asexually reproduce and "Magically" change under conditions that are scientifically impossible. I also agree that other planets may very well harbor life, it is closed-minded to think outside the box.

"I respect that, but I use a different definition for 'evidence'. It's not an attack to you or anyone else, but as said before I don't think the Bible is that much of a 'valid source' for itself to be counted as true evidence. I think you have to look into the research that has been done to try and find cities or prove events from biblical times... you'll be surprised how incredibly little has been found to be even remotely (read: can't rule out whether or not it happened or not) accurate,

Cheers"

Simple, there are many explanations in the bible for where the places are:

Eden, it mentions being centered around a river that splits into 4: Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates. - It is logical to suppose that Gihon and Pishon could have dried up over time, or been filled in or cut off. Tigris and Euphrates are still there today. This places eden near Iraq.

Canaan, this is modern day Israel, it also encompasses Palestine and Lebenon. In the bible God promised this land to the Israelites. The Jews used to own most of this land until (current day) Palestinians decided to fight for it and get the land. There has been religious warfare there ever since, it is the world Epicenter for warefare. Of course, no one can foget the Six Day War in which the Jews were outnumbered extremely and Divinely took back the area. I say divinely because of the ratio of numbers and days. Simply put, the Arabs were Pwned. It makes since that war has been going on there for so long because the entire area they were promised does not belong to them.

Are there more places you wish to ask about?

That science theorys never get proven is another obscure argument in an obscure discussion, just showing your ignorance. It is simply not true. The concepts gets proven, that's for sure. Whole student generations in all countries becomes exactly that to do. Prove it, try to disprove it, convince me from it or from the opposite.

What you absolutely seem to miss is how science works. How should you, you believe, and don't care about knowledge and facts. A concept is the best as long as there is nothing better. When there is something better, this better concept, this theory, becomes the best.

Every concept is called a theory by the way. That the earth is round (okay, ellypsoid) is still called a theory. Gravity is still called a theory. Don't play with words when you don't understand them.

Big Bang theory has not been disproved since, err, 50 years? I don't know. But it is currently the best. Evolution has not been disproved for 150 years. It is currently the best. Even and especially compared with the concept of creationists. There is noting left when you really start to proof the concept of creationism. All facts are against it. All facts points in direction of Evolution instead.

That the earth is flat and the sun circulates around the earth has been disproven. Not longer valid. And the Vatican has finally agreed that the earth is round - in 2001! They have denied as long as possible to keep the dogma of the almightiness. That's how religion works. That the earth is just a few thousand years old has been disproven - the Vatican still denys. Creationists still denys. As long as possible. To keep the dogma of the almightiness.

Another favour trick in such discussions here is to mix half true things with facts and prominent names. Like throwing the word Einstein into the discussion (honestly, did you even understand what you have written here in that context?). Ooh, look, he mentions Einstein, so Einstein must be at their side. Which means he must be right. A cheap trick. Or just to write half of a comment. Ooh, look, that he said. And when you read the full comment you find out that he said the exact opposite. Another cheap trick.

Cheap tricks. That's how religion works since thousands of years.

I'm sorry but I don't think you truly understand my point here. I'm talking about the stories, the content itself. A lot of the biblical stories are far far older than when Christ ever existed, older than when Christianity ever existed... even far older than Judaism! We know this because most of the stories were written down by other a couple of different cultures from before the time of Jesus so to speak.

The whole genesis story was copied almost word for word from Sumerian myths, the idea of a half-God with superhuman powers turning water into wine, walking on water, a world wide flood, the Kain and Abel brother fight story, the virgin birth of a child, and many many other stories came from much older myths.

It's really quite impossible to even deny they've been copying and pasting a lot in the early days. Too much details are exactly the same. The Christian religion, like most religions do actually, just took all the interesting stories and made them their own. I don't understand why you think this makes the stories more reliable instead of less reliable to be honest.

It's quite clear that a lot of stories, having even the same names for many of the characters involved, can not have taken place twice in history. The reappearance of these stories in different cultures are proof for their popularity through time, but when it comes to historic value in terms of when, where and íf it all took place the way it was written down... it couldn't be more questionable.



Before you continue down this road.. keep in mind that in our view your religion hasn't been proven 'absolutely' either. The same is true... there shouldn't be put too much faith in it, as it's also a 'theory'. No offense, but I don't agree with the assumption that science is a religion though, it's based on evidence, reproduction of results and rationality, not mountains of faith, hope and wishful thinking.

As said in other discussions and probably repeated here too I don't think it's even possible to prove anything as 'absolutely' true. Absolutism in my opinion is clearly theoretical in nature, we can only go with what we know and we can't rule out all the other, infinite, possibilities. Our knowledge and what we consider to be 'facts' is largely based on the 'likeliness of a theory to be correct'. That's all there is to it. The nature of knowledge is relative.

Anyways, the topic of absolutism vs. relativism could easily fill a whole new debate with many many many pages.



Historic documents often give a very one-sided view of things. I never claimed all our history books in school are correct, quite the contrary.

The written documents aren't the only clue to what happened through time though. As said before archeology, geology and many other disciplines of science simply do not support the biblical stories.

When a king exaggerates it's power and influence in a text and brags about having erected 4000 pilars in his honor and name after a successful battle and we only find about 150 pilars scattered through the area.. then that certainly says a LOT about the validity / accuracy of the king's story. This is only one of many examples, in the case of the pilars it was unrelated to the Bible, but the story of the hundreds or even thousands of chariots that supposed to have crossed the dead sea is basically exactly the same...



Actually evolution doesn't rely on chance. But there's no need to apologize, but I do think it's flawed reasoning. Something doesn't become 'scientifically impossible' just because people think it's incredibly complex and therefore must be designed. Complexity itself is certainly no evidence for design.

Usually the more we think a certain system is complex, the less we really understand of it. A lack of knowledge or simply a vast amount of knowledge needed to comprehend the system makes it so that we consider such a system to be almost too complex.

In reality we might know a lot of said systems, but struggle with the entire picture. That's exactly the case for our existence, the theory of evolution and all the other questions around this all.

It's also more or less just a matter of opinion whether you think the entire system is 'perfect'. After all many beings have to die before a species arrives at it's next evolutionary phase so to speak. It's a very aggressive way of progress.



It ís open-minded actually. It's how science works. It's erroneous to think scientists rush to conclusions considering their theories as facts too soon. Yes there are things that can't easily be proven, but there are also many things that have been proven to be correct and factual. (Of course, as in 'extremely likely to be correct'. But never forget science deals with theories that are either 'valid', 'invalid' or 'pending research'. It's a bit more complex than just saying 'okey, I give up, my theory must be right'.)



Why exactly did you mention the atom bomb here? It's quite likely that Einstein knew more or less exactly what could happen with his theories. Some argue he was out for revenge having lost family in the 2nd world war, but he probably hoped the atom bomb wouldn't be used for real. Even many things concerning the hazardous nature of radiation might have been known also, but you can only know for sure when you test in practice. That's what science is all about.

You could also have mentioned the atom power plants that were made possible because of all this,

Cheers

You're mixing up my words, in what part in the last post did I say "theories never get proven"? Simply because you read this wrong, I need not answer more on the first paragraph, as for the second:

I'm not 100 percent sure what you're trying to say here. I have stated facts on the side of theories, once again, read the post. I never said anything bad about theories.



Forgive me, but....are you serious? You call gravity a theory....you call the earth being an Ellipsoid a theory...

First off, gravity is called, get this: The *LAW* of Gravity. Gravity is not a concept, it is scientific LAW there is a huge boundary between law and theory, and since I've already posted a long one on this, I'll simply post the scientific process (method) and the definition of scientific law:

1.Ask a question (how did it happen?) [unless you are proving an existing theory, skip to step 3]
2.Research (make sure it hasn't already been disproven)
3.Theorize (make a hypothesis)
4.Test it (make sure the hypothesis is possible)
5.Check the results
If hypothesis is correct (and results can be duplicated):
- see 4 at least one or two times, then:
Report the results, if results are right, the theory is made a law

If hypothesis is incorrect, or at least somewhat true:
- see step 4 and repeat until theory is proven or disproven

A couple of references for the scientific method:
Here
and Here

As for what a law is:



A couple of references for the scientific (natural) law:
Here
and Here

wait a minute...it says nothing about whether we can understand the law or not...it says that if it occurs every time when certain conditions are met...then it is law. Correct me if I am wrong, but in certain areas of this earth I can drop a ball and it will fall, well, I guess that makes gravity law. The results will always (under the conditions mentioned) be right. That IS LAW.

let's test the earth being round...well it seems that if the earth is round and you go into space and see it, and take pictures, and if we don't fall off "the edge", then that must also be right every time you check it...that must also make it law...hmmm...

I don't mean to be too much of a jerk, and I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings. You guys, to be "scientifically-minded" seem to forget about the BASICS of science.



Tiles...you didn't read one of my previous posts...




Umm...what? Apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote...perhaps you should look it over again...



I'm gonna have to ask for proof



I didn't say this to be a bad thing, as I said in that same post:



This is what a theory is...I never said that it can't and won't be proven, I also said that it can't be discounted either.

[PHeMoX]Historic documents often give a very one-sided view of things. I never claimed all our history books in school are correct, quite the contrary.

The written documents aren't the only clue to what happened through time though. As said before archeology, geology and many other disciplines of science simply do not support the biblical stories.

When a king exaggerates it's power and influence in a text and brags about having erected 4000 pilars in his honor and name after a successful battle and we only find about 150 pilars scattered through the area.. then that certainly says a LOT about the validity / accuracy of the king's story. This is only one of many examples, in the case of the pilars it was unrelated to the Bible, but the story of the hundreds or even thousands of chariots that supposed to have crossed the dead sea is basically exactly the same...[/quote]

I was using history as an example as why biblical things should be taught as history, they don't have to say if it's true or not, I just think that the bible is a history book that should have the same right as "old questionable history" ( lol ) in school.



If an event does not have a catalyst that is "someone" or "something" then it is chance. The thing is, we could even say that aliens caused life on this planet, but it would lead to the same old question; how did they get here? My point is, there is alot of chance involved when talking about the subject, there is also alot of questionable theories about how life sprouted and evolved. Alot of the theories are scientifically impossible.



I was referring to the fact that we aren't still trying to disprove our own hypotheses in evolution. That is the point of testing, to try your best to disprove the hypothesis that you started, whilst keeping an open mind about the hypothesis, if it doesn't agree with other science then there is something wrong with either the hypothesis, or the science that it is comparing to.



I was mentioning it as an example for the equation, I was simply stating that even though it has research that works, the ENTIRE theory cannot all be proven at this moment with modern day science.

Well, I'm backing out PHeMoX. I'm repeating myself to alot of users pointlessly (excluding you, you seem to be the only open-minded guy on the side of Evolution :P ) and it's annoying. This post as will also be done the same way. Either way, my conclusion for whether creationism and biblical history should be taught has already been stated multiple times. Most of this is off-topic anyway . Well, enjoy the debate!

The law of gravity is still a theory



Ah, so he didn't create the universe, not even the planets? Your god is just a local god?

Still collides with the age of stones and fossils. Which is provable. And so fact. No provable facts available about the theory that a local god has done some modifications at a piece of rock though.



Have.

Hey,

First off, I'd like to agree with Shando69. Although not perfect, we do manage to keep the discussion on a much better level than what we all witness everyday under youtube comments and other much more juvenile forums, which is why I'm happy to contribute here and listen to what people have to say. Then again, believing that we'd come to a unanimous scientific result from a forum discussion is ludicrous so I don't expect the impossible. As a forum I think we're doing alright here and I cherish the community we have.




I beg to differ.. I think that the literal stories of the Bible have been the MOST researched and tested hypothesis EVER, by scientists and non-scientists alike. Every story in it that could somehow be validated today has been exhaustly researched in order to find a faint of proof in them. For the story of Noah and the Arc we found that there indeed has been frequent floodings of the Eufrat river (i doubt i've spelled that right..) using geological evidence. For the story of Moses, there is still undergoing research on trying to find any evidence at all that thousands of people walked across the desert for 40 years. For the story of the sea splitting in half for the Jews to walk through, we've been scourging the dead sea for Pharao's Chariots that supposively drowned (we have found 1 chariot, although people were expecting thousands of them. It's not proof one way or another i'm just saying we've been looking..) Again with Sodoma and Gomora being punished and being turned into columns of salt(i'm doing a literal translation from greek), we've looked and we indeed found traces of salt. I'm not saying something is proven or not, i'm just saying that humans have indeed been looking... a LOT.

Science will always investigate everything, no matter how crazy it sounds. Do you know that the CIA actually had a program were it investigated Remote Viewing (telepathy) and what benefits it would ripe from it? 8 million dollars of US tax payers money went into this. After they found no proof on this concept, telepathy leaked into the rest of the world and is now used by Mediums and Cold Reader scummers. But the point is that if you are familiar with a term, be it a miracle from the Bible, or telepathy, telekinisis or whatever, chances are that Science has already tested this a lot of years ago.



Evolution is being tested everyday and as I've said, if someone manages to disprove it there's a Nobel Prize and 1 million dollars waiting for him, so the incentive is there but no one has been able to do so for 150 years. But saying that people believe 100% in evolution is very wrong. Ask me, I'm a strong advocate of evolution and have actually based my career on it by focusing on a similar model on IT. Am I 100% sure evolution is correct? Of course not.. Until 1905 everyone believed in Newton's theory of relativity until Einstein came along and corrected it. Scientists never believe in anything 100% which is why maybe the "word" theory got its bad name from. I've only known religious people that believe in something 100%.




Hello mp_developer,

You still seem to be a bit confused about law and theory, but I can't blame you ; Most people are, and I was too before I was corrected by a scientist.

This is what you mean i think... Since, if we drop an object and it falls, we can OBSERVE gravity at work, you call this a law. And everything else we can OBSERVE, like the earth moving around the sun, that's also a law in your mind, but if we are to speculate something then that's a theory until it can be proven.

There are many things wrong with the above paragraph. First of, a theory can NEVER be proven. That's why I said before, scientists are never 100% about anything. Now, the effect that if we drop an object it will fall down, this is an observation; a fact if you will. The problem is that this observation does NOT explain anything. It's just data to scientists. It does NOT explain why it falls, IF it will fall in any place on the planet, if it would fall 4 billion years ago and if it will fall 4 billion years from now. It's only an observation.

If you were to explain WHY the object falls, then you make a hypothesis "it falls because the planet acts as some sort of a magnet..". After exhausting testing and debate, if your hypothesis stands then it becomes a theory. Forget laws, they don't matter.. They are just subparts of theories. A theory can NEVER upgrade to something better than a theory. A Law is not above a theory, it's just part of it.

So, while the fact that some objects fall down has never been disproven (you can't really disprove facts, as I said they're just data), Newton's theory of Gravity, and in derivation, Newton's LAW of Gravity have been disproven by Einstein's own theory of Gravity that it's not the planets themselves that act on the object but time and space which skew around the planet.




This is all very correct until your last sentence. It should read like this:

Report the results, if results are right, the hypothesis is made into a theory


I checked your references. They seem to got it right, I think it's you who are confusing the terms. I think what you want to say is "The fact of gravity", meaning the phenomenon where if we drop something like an apple, it will fall to the ground. We certainly cannot dispute that, but the questions WHY it falls down, or HOW we humans were created will always be subjects for dispute.

Now the reason why a fact is not important whereas a theory is, is that a fact only shows that object X falls down when dropped in location Y, with conditions Z, whereas a theory tries to explain the phenomenon universally. I hope this is clear.




Actually E=MC² was developed in just a couple of months. And sure, you can't prove if you can travel back in time or not, but you can make predictions using Einstein's theories and successful predictions is what give theories weight. If the Bible made accurate and scientifically testable predictions as well, I'm sure it would also carry a lot more weight than it carries now.

Here's a quote from one of my Einstein books:



If Einstein's theory had failed to predict the position of that star, we wouldn't even know his name today. Still, that does not prove that General relativity is 100% correct, because even though it made an accurate prediction that could not have possibly be luck, it still may only be partially true. You can't prove a theory, ever.

About the atomic bomb and Einstein, what happened was, Einstein was worried that Facist Germany might develop an atomic bomb using Einstein's latest contributions to the scientific world. So he wrote a letter to Roosevelt warning him about it, resulting in what we all already know. Einstein had no further involvement in the development of the atomic bomb other than that letter.




True, but since we can measure the shape of our planet using instruments, we can also call the Earth being round as a Fact. People prefer to use the word fact on things we can measure since they are more absolute than the word theory. Yet, the fact that the Earth is round which can be measured as data today validates Pythagoras's theory that the Earth is round when he predicted it 2600 years ago.


Cheers,
Aris

Please name one atheist or agnostic scientist who is actively questioning evolutionary theory and in the process of testing alternatives.