Intelligent Design - Page 15

Rick_the_new_guy · 12-22-2006, 11:54 AM

wait, fair enough, D.N.A. should be off the list.

Mapping of the human genome was brought on by D.N.A. understanding.

By itself D.N.A. does nothing to discredit religion and their understanding of reality.

What I mean is what they believe to be reality and truth:
i.e.
World being 5K year old for Christinans.

**sordavie** · 12-22-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

This is why empiracists begin with 'Cogito ergo sum' and go from there.

Actually, Descartes was a rationalist. Rationalism, roughly, is the doctrine that all (sometimes some) knowledge comes from the faculty of reason (as opposed to the faculties of perception) alone. Descartes thought that he couldn't trust his perceptual senses because they were fallible--they could be misleading. So, he goes on to reason about knowing his own existence and the like.

Empiricists, as I mentioned earlier, roughtly believe that all knowledge comes from the faculties of perception. As far as this distinction between rationalism and empiricism goes, Descartes was not an empiricist and it's unlikely and empiricist would find any need to justify all of their knowledge through the cogito (I think therefore I am for those who don't speak Latin).

Steeler · 12-22-2006, 12:11 PM

Dammit, Sordavie, stop knowing more than me! I always get my -isms mixed up.

Obi · 12-22-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

Isn't this a defense of religion from science already? Science says that the Earth is x years old. You, the religious guy, comes to the defense of the religion saying that science is wrong because God only made the Earth appear to us to be x years old when in actuality, it is y years old. That sounds like religious belief is under attack and here's a reply. When people say that religion is under attack by science, all they mean is that science tells us something incompatible with something the religion tells us.

Yeah I see what you're getting at here. What I should have explained better when I said "defense" was that Ricks points are not necesarily incompatible with religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

What proof do I have that the world around me isn't some elaborate charade constructed by God within my own lifespan? How do I know this forum, and everyone in it are not actors written by God for my benefit, and their opinions and statements are merely illusions of independent human minds? How do I know the universe didn't spring into existence just before I woke up this morning, with all my memories placed by God to give the illusion of having gone out drinking with the office the night before? (That would explain the headache, certainly.)

This is why empiracists begin with 'Cogito ergo sum' and go from there.

Are you able to answer that question? I don't think I can.

**sordavie** · 12-22-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi

Yeah I see what you're getting at here. What I should have explained better when I said "defense" was that Ricks points are not necesarily incompatible with religion.

Well, it's still incompatible. Either the Earth is older than 10,000 years or it's not. You've made it appear compatible on this theory by saying science did the best it could but got it wrong--no fault of the scientists. Still, science got it wrong because the world isn't more than 10,000 years old, God only made it seem that way.

Kerostasis · 12-22-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

The concept of zero is much older than the date you place it's "invention" at. Indeed, Aristotle in the 3rd century BC recognized zero as a number. And, he wasn't the first to have such a concept. So, it's likely that there were people around with the concept of zero at the time the old testament was written. Moreover, the point about numerals that express arbitrarily large numbers doesn't quite seem to be a point about the concept of the number zero as it is a point about a mathematical language in which you have placeholders.

Well, thats what I meant. People have had the concept of "nothing" for a long time, they just lacked the mathematical "zero" which allows for the construction of arbitrarily large numbers.

Quote:

Anyhow, I'm unsure how whether the writers of the old testament had such a concept exactly how this fits in with a discussion on intelligent design. Even if they had no numeral for 'zero', it doesn't mean they didn't have the concept of magnitudes, and different orders of magnitudes, larger than they had words to express. I think it would be a stretch to say that if there's no word in your language that corresponds to a concept, then you don't have that concept. That's a substantial thesis and would need defending. I think that intuitively it must be wrong. Hence, your argument that Hebrews can't comprehend lengths of time larger than a couple hundred years isn't persuasive. Here's some evidence:

1. We can learn new words.

It's plausible to think that we learn new words by associating a string of symbols or sounds (afterall, that's what a word is) to a certain concept we have in our mind. If that's so, then we must have the concept in mind before we learn how to use a new word.

2. We can introduce new words to a language.

The idea is similar to 1, but it doesn't require a particular theory about learning. It's plausible to think that we introduce new words to a language, say a technical language like mathematics, or the words that physicists use like 'electron' or 'neutrino', by having a concept in mind and introducing a convention to associate that concept with a string of symbols or sounds.

Granted, we can add new words to allow new concepts, and we can conceive of things for which there are as of yet no words. However, there are limits on both of these. Non-worded concepts are represented in our minds by how they relate to other concepts for which we do have words. You can expand upon existing words and say "this new thing as twice as good as that word I already had" or "three times as big", but you can't easily pull an entirely new concept out of thin air. Sure, you could invent a word and say "this concept is now called XYZ", but it would be about as useful as the guy who invented "Nullity". It wouldn't MEAN anything, because it can't be described in terms of concepts that are already familiar.

Quote:

3. We have concepts for which there are no English words that correspond.

Suppose my number system went only up to 999. That is, suppose that I have no words to express numbers larger than 999. It's possible, still, that I have the concept of a period of time longer than 999 years. This can be done in a number of ways.

-First, I could associate 999 with a unit other than years, say centuries or millenia (or, I guess millenia minus one). This would get me the concept of a period of time longer than 999 years, for example '900 centuries', without any numerals that express numbers greater than 999. (That would be 90,000 years

)

How do we English people think about long periods of time? We attach numbers to them. We can say it was 163 years between the US revolution and the start of World War II, because we can subtract the date of one (1776) from the date of the other (1939) and get a new number. But has anyone been alive long enough to see both? Does anyone have a mental concept of exactly how long 163 years is? No, its just a number, born of the fact that both events were dated on the same number system (years since the birth of Christ). And we can say its been 2006 years now since Christ (ignoring any confusion about the correct placement of the year 1), but no one can properly comprehend how much time 2,006 years really is--we just say todays date is "2006" because thats our number. Your language really does influence the way you think. But when your numbers don't go any higher than a few hundred, its fundamentally impossible to put everything on a single timeline, so people didn't even think that way. Saying 900 Centuries just wouldn't even be a meaningful number to them. It was more like your second example:

Quote:

-Second, I may have a concept about combining periods of time in order to understand a period of time greater than that which I have numerals for. I take it this is what happens in Genesis. This is how Genesis describes the earth as being more than 4000 years old without having any numerals that express numbers greater than 999. Here's how that would go. I can express a period between event a and event b, which lasts 900 years. I can then specify another period between event b and even c, which lasts another 900 years. If I have the concept about combination, I have the concept of the amount of time that has passed between event a and event c without any numeral in my language that expresses that number in years. (1,800 years in this example)

To a certain extent, this works. Now instead of a single timeline, measured in years since a particular event, you have multiple shorter timelines placed back to back. But this system of dating relies heavily on those events. What if you reach a period where there are no events? For example, the period during earth's history when there were no humans? Thats a several billion year period without any events that can be easily used to construct a timeline. How do you describe that? You can't just say "the 300th year of the Pre-Cambrian Period came to pass, and then it was the Devonian Period". They wouldn't have had any way of differentiating the dozens of pre-historic landmarks modern science has proposed. So instead they got this short list: "Beginning-->Light-->Day/Night-->Dry land-->Plants-->visible stars for calendar keeping-->water animals-->flying animals-->walking animals-->MAN." And really, how much more detail did you need in 2000 BC?

(further response left for later)
(edit: blast, I missed a whole page and a half while typing)

Atomic Dog · 12-22-2006, 12:48 PM

Why not, I'll chime in...

My understanding of the Old Testament text is, in regards to the time it took to create the earth, is that in it's truest interpretation there is no 7 Day creation as most Judaeo-Christians hold today. The term 7 is used a measure for 7 periods of undefined amounts of time. 1 segment (or day) could have equaled 1 or 10 billion years for all we know...but we do know it certainly wasn't 24 hours.

Now, concerning the earth's age...

Mostly we assume the Bible says that earth is 10,000 years old because of the timeline of events beginning with the exit from the Garden of Eden. What we fail to see is there is no mentioning of just how long "Adam" and "Eve" existed within the Garden. They could have been there for thousands and thousands of years. Again, an undefined period of time. What we do know is when they do finally get expelled from the garden, there are already other tribes of people on the earth. "Adam" and "Eve" aren't representative of humanity as a whole. They're respresentative of God's chosen people (according to the Bible)...the Jews. This is their creation story, not the creation of man. Man was apparently there all along while they, Adam and Eve, had been isolated within the Garden.

The problem is not in religion. The problem is in how outsiders have interpreted the texts. As far as I've ever seen or known, I don't see much conflict with science and the religious texts. Only conflicts between men and their stubborn ideaologies.

**CingularDuality** · 12-22-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

What proof do I have that the world around me isn't some elaborate charade constructed by God within my own lifespan? How do I know this forum, and everyone in it are not actors written by God for my benefit, and their opinions and statements are merely illusions of independent human minds? How do I know the universe didn't spring into existence just before I woke up this morning, with all my memories placed by God to give the illusion of having gone out drinking with the office the night before? (That would explain the headache, certainly.)

What if we're all actually part of The Matrix?

Obi · 12-22-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

My understanding of the Old Testament text is, in regards to the time it took to create the earth, is that in it's truest interpretation there is no 7 Day creation as most Judaeo-Christians hold today. The term 7 is used a measure for 7 periods of undefined amounts of time. 1 segment (or day) could have equaled 1 or 10 billion years for all we know...but we do know it certainly wasn't 24 hours.

I've heard this theory before. What is your reason for saying "it certainly wasn't 24 hours"?

Kerostasis · 12-22-2006, 01:27 PM

I don't know that we "know it wasn't" so much as "don't have a strong reason to believe it was". That leaves us free to ask science to fill in the gaps, with predictable results.

Atomic Dog · 12-22-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi

I've heard this theory before. What is your reason for saying "it certainly wasn't 24 hours"?

God being the author of all things (as I believe), then I have to believe that God is also the author of the sciences as well. I don't believe in the theory that God...or the devil...created the illusion of time. I believe that all these things that we discover about the Universe, the sciences, our histories, etc. are all essential to whatever purpose it was created for to begin with.

So, science dictates the formation of the earth and heavens took far longer than 6 days...therefore we are safe to assume that the 6 periods of undefined time mentioned in Genesis were not periods of 24 hours, but likely they were far greater.

As for the seventh day...I believe we're still in it. But that's another theory altogether.

Obi · 12-22-2006, 02:06 PM

The thing I don't like about "it's not really a proper day" is that the Bible says "God called the light 'Day' and the darkness he called 'Night', And there was evening and there was morning - the first day." That suggests it was a normal day to me. He also rested on the seventh day and we are supposed to do the same. As far as I can tell we are not supposed to rest for thousands of years (although I'd quite like to).

Atomic Dog · 12-22-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi

The thing I don't like about "it's not really a proper day" is that the Bible says "God called the light 'Day' and the darkness he called 'Night', And there was evening and there was morning - the first day." That suggests it was a normal day to me. He also rested on the seventh day and we are supposed to do the same. As far as I can tell we are not supposed to rest for thousands of years (although I'd quite like to).

In Genesis the Hebrew word translated to "day" is yome. Yome, in its most general definition is indicative of only a period, or segment, of time. It can also mean a 24 hour day; and also, it can mean day as opposed to night. But context is crucial. I believe in the context in which it is used it's not indicating a 24 hour period when it says "the first day." But it is indicating day as opposed to night when it says "God called the light 'Day.'

I found this scripture in the New Testament to be quite profound in relation to the creation story and also as to how God may percieve time (if He percieves time at all):

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Icsist · 12-28-2006, 12:07 PM

Im not even gonna comment on this thread.. You guys are way to smart for me.

xTYBALTx · 12-28-2006, 12:09 PM

Intelligent design, torture, and global warming. What's up with people this morning?

12-22-2006, 11:54 AM	#211 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: Intelligent Design wait, fair enough, D.N.A. should be off the list. Mapping of the human genome was brought on by D.N.A. understanding. By itself D.N.A. does nothing to discredit religion and their understanding of reality. What I mean is what they believe to be reality and truth: i.e. World being 5K year old for Christinans. __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

12-22-2006, 12:11 PM	#213 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Intelligent Design Dammit, Sordavie, stop knowing more than me! I always get my -isms mixed up. __________________

12-22-2006, 12:48 PM	#217 (permalink)
Atomic Dog Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Michigan Age: 31 Posts: 4,079	Re: Intelligent Design Why not, I'll chime in... My understanding of the Old Testament text is, in regards to the time it took to create the earth, is that in it's truest interpretation there is no 7 Day creation as most Judaeo-Christians hold today. The term 7 is used a measure for 7 periods of undefined amounts of time. 1 segment (or day) could have equaled 1 or 10 billion years for all we know...but we do know it certainly wasn't 24 hours. Now, concerning the earth's age... Mostly we assume the Bible says that earth is 10,000 years old because of the timeline of events beginning with the exit from the Garden of Eden. What we fail to see is there is no mentioning of just how long "Adam" and "Eve" existed within the Garden. They could have been there for thousands and thousands of years. Again, an undefined period of time. What we do know is when they do finally get expelled from the garden, there are already other tribes of people on the earth. "Adam" and "Eve" aren't representative of humanity as a whole. They're respresentative of God's chosen people (according to the Bible)...the Jews. This is their creation story, not the creation of man. Man was apparently there all along while they, Adam and Eve, had been isolated within the Garden. The problem is not in religion. The problem is in how outsiders have interpreted the texts. As far as I've ever seen or known, I don't see much conflict with science and the religious texts. Only conflicts between men and their stubborn ideaologies. __________________ \| ArmA SOPs \| PCS SOPs \| TG Primer \| 4th Wiki \| Ikariam Info: Mothership \| Parliament \| Chocolate City \| Saint George

12-22-2006, 02:06 PM	#222 (permalink)
Obi Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Scotland Age: 20 Posts: 2,083	Re: Intelligent Design The thing I don't like about "it's not really a proper day" is that the Bible says "God called the light 'Day' and the darkness he called 'Night', And there was evening and there was morning - the first day." That suggests it was a normal day to me. He also rested on the seventh day and we are supposed to do the same. As far as I can tell we are not supposed to rest for thousands of years (although I'd quite like to).

12-28-2006, 12:07 PM	#224 (permalink)
Icsist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Amherst, WI Age: 28 Posts: 315	Re: Intelligent Design Im not even gonna comment on this thread.. You guys are way to smart for me. __________________ QUOTE : "Icsist has a little shameless behavior in the past" Nice remark guys.

12-28-2006, 12:09 PM	#225 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,899	Re: Intelligent Design Intelligent design, torture, and global warming. What's up with people this morning? __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links