My interpretation of what you think is that I think that you are right in what you think but as it's hot like crazy in my office because of the heatwave (canicule), I'll agree with everything you say.....

 

Interesting comment about how Creationism is considered in France:

http://www.tazius.fr/les-creationnismes/Pour-la-science_sept2013.jpg

Creationism is mainly associated with the American protestant Evangelists who reject the theory of evolution, stating that the Earth and the species thereon were created by God about 6 000 years ago. This reminds us of the "Monkey trial" in 1925 or the one in Little Rock (Arkansas) in 1981, wherein the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had struggled against a Creationism that was already getting itself as a rational alternative to Darwinism. The time has come today to review those representations way too restrictive. Through a meticulous inquiry, Cyrille Baudouin and Oliver Brosseau show how, since the 2000's, what was considered as an American bigoted folklore has become a worldwide, protean, structured reality thanks to a host of organisations often interlinked, and at times, richly funded.

The gamut of Creationist movements is baffling. From the most radical, the Theistic Creationists, who interpret to the letter the sacred texts, to the embracing spiritualism, which encourages dialogue between science and religion, without forgetting the supporters of the Intelligent Design, the talent of the authors will be well needed so we may understand something in this nebulous jumble that, another preconceived idea, doesn't come from Christianity only anymore. The Muslim Creationism, steadfast on its anti-darwinist position, has washed over Turkey after Atatürk, then over the whole of Europe in 2007, with the shipping to numerous institutions of a luxurious book, The Atlas of the Creation, written by a mysterious Harun Yahya. Here, there is no such a thing as a war of religions. The ecumenism, more hidden than promoted, fosters the spreading of texts and anti-evolutionary thesis.

Each of these organizations are meticulously studied; their histories, their representants, their economies, their strategies are explained in detail as well as their relationships with each other. If the stances vary in their forms, all eventually want to discredit science, to hijack its goals, to disparage its methods and to blur its frontiers in order to add therein the four pilars of Creationism : the existence of a supranatural intelligence being at the origin of the world, the strong anthropic principle, finalism and spiritualism. All those organizations try and impose the teaching of spiritualistic alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution and unfortunately, it's not rare that they manage to do it. In that regard, Creationism has political goals.

In addition to their thorough inquiry, the authors have tried hard to make conspicuous what is really at stake, by starting their book with fundamental notions of epistemology. One can't understand the importance of the problem, or fight efficiently against the Creationisms, without having a clear answer to the following question : what is science ? Several important notions, not always taught in the scientific courses, are thus scrutinized through a series of concise interviews with judiciously chosen specialists.

To sum up, a book that is useful as well because of its expertise on a subject that remains mainly unheard of, or even ignored, as through its epistemological forewords that shed light on what scientific methods must be and that give the keys to identifiy the spiritualistic impostures. A book that is important because the autonomy of science is at stake, as well the integrity with which it should be taught as more generally the vigor of the principle of secularism in our societies.

Disclaimer, just in case : I don't endorse everything that is said above, even if there is nothing utterly extraordinary therein. I just quoted this text to show how Creationism is considered in France. "Pour la Science" is the French version of "The Scientific American.

 

Unfortunately, you know this above.... only too well. There's nothing new under the sun... Men will be men... whatever the side they're on !

Contrary to the movie, in the book, the girl dies on the stake like the others....

Besides : I've had the luck of knowing her name, the name of the rose, the name of my rose.....

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus

 

I’ve been away for a couple of days and haven’t paid much attention to the particular posts about “Creationists†and “Evolutionistsâ€, and whoever believes whatever about the birth of the earth. Wheeeeeoowwhh!!!

For Utuna: Those “Creationists†which you refer to are whom I call Baptists, Evangelists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc. They are on both sides of the pond. They all believe in a literal translation of 1611 English. To them, the King James Version is the correct bible. They believe in a literal 24 hour, 7 day creation of the universe, and we are living in a time of judgment. They are against evolution, birth control, etc, etc, etc. If it ain’t in the KJV and according to their interpretation, . . . Well it just ain’t so! “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.†(Mt 19:26 KJV)

This meaning as stated by Jesus is quite often, taken out of context and applied to anything God has done. Jesus was not speaking about the impossible, but the restoration of mankind and the new Kingdom of God. “And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.†( Mt 19:28 NASB )

On another subject, I’ve been reading and studying about Thomas Jefferson. I was told that he was an atheist and non-christian. So, I decided to check it out. The only way to tell what someone believes is to read what they write.

“Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.†— Thomas Jefferson

“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.†— Thomas Jefferson

I told a friend that I could have written that. So. . .from the statement above, it says that Jefferson was not an atheist, and was a Christian. It just wasn’t what some organization professed to be, or how a Christian should believe, according to that organization or church. Remember, in his day there were only two ways acceptable to be a Christian. Protestant or Catholic. Jefferson chose to be neither.

 

Hey Londoner !

Thanks for your quick answer. Mine is late, as usual. I wanted to take advantage of it to send you the hi I wanted to send you since a while ago but I'll send it to you anyway....

I'm sad that you didn't eventually choose to chip in with the plenty of evidence you talked about because those may have been the kind of arguments I was looking for. I did need some beef, real food for thoughts.

Christian scholars have plenty of evidence ? Then, where are they ? Where are those studies ? Where are those arguments ? Where are those slews of evidence that the earth isn't as old as it appears ?

Are the YE Creationists the only ones on earth who try and prove that the Bible account of the Creation is true (or better said, their interpretation of it) ? unfortunately, doing it in ways that show that they glaringly take their readership for fools....

Before writing this post, I have had a butcher's at the two brochures the WT released a couple of years ago (and the Awake mag dated August 2015). I must admit that I had never read them because, the WT study and the Bible book excepted, I haven't read WT publications for years and.... I'm amazed how wise and pertinent their arguments are in that regard. After all the "worldly" scientific books and mags I have read and that were dealing with archeology, geology and evolution at times, I wouldn't have explained it all otherwise. It'll be the first time I read a brochure or a mag in years.... lol

Besides, I'm glad they don't give in to lies and intellectual dishonesty by twisting scientific and objective observations so they match their religious dogmas... for a change... but it's worth highlighting it ! They rather emphasize the fact that nature is too beautiful and too amazing to have happened by accident. I think that their stance is wise.

I have other things to say but I don't have the time for it right now.

 

Thanks Tsaphah for your precisions. I didn't know that the KJV was the common trait to them all.

As I've said on numerous occasions on this thread, I don't really mind if those people believe that the earth was created in 7 days of 24h each. What makes me cringe is when people twist objective and scientific results so they fit their beliefs.

What scientists do = explanation of what we observe in nature. There are things, phenomena, objects, forces and so on which we observe and to which we endeavour to make sense (said otherwise: deduce physical laws from them). The potential bias of interpretation may be located in the preconceived ideas held by the scientists but nobody can change facts and said bias are located in the higher levels of interpretation, not in the scientific observations.

Example : Hominids found with rudimentary tools around. The factual data are fossilized skeletons, stone tools and the sundry means to date the strata in which the two first were found.

Here, the bias are located in the conclusions reached in relation to the theory of evolution, not in the actual existence of the archeological findings.

What YE Creationists do = They have preconceived beliefs and they look in nature for the proof of their preconceived beliefs. They discard everything that may not support their ideas and therefore accept only those who support them.

Here, we are dead on that which cognitive dissonance really is : efforts to reconcile two opposing views, generally between preconceived beliefs and the wall of reality. In a nutshell, it's when we face factual evidence of a reality that contradicts our beliefs. The result is that as we generally choose to stick to our beliefs, to have them to change the later possible, we tend to bend reality or even reject it. We have seen plenty of examples of this with people who affirm that the dinosaur fossils were created by Satan to mislead the humans, that the physical laws weren't the same in the distant past, that we don't know everything because science as we know it is 200 yo only.

The point, in my opinion, here is : Is reality really as it should be (according to our beliefs, I mean) ?

If it is => As a consequence, the scientists are wrong. It therefore means that millions of scientists, coming from numerous scientific fields and from all walks of secular and religious life are plainly wrong. That's mainly the kind of dilemma we face when we read the arguments which Josh quoted : "The proofs that the literal interpretation of the Creation account is correct are everywhere. The scientists are just plainly wrong". So, I repeat, why and how would so many scientists be so wrong, many among them believing in God and in Creation ? If the Creation was as the YECs tell it is, why is it so hard to find a proof of it ? Cognitive Dissonance again ? Because Satan wants it so ?

If it is not => As a consequence, the YECs are wrong and the Creation account has multiple levels of reading and understanding. Now a question arises for the YECs : Why did God create the earth in 7 days whereas we find nothing to prove it on objective ways ? That's what I implied when I asked why Jehovah would have put us off the scent in that regard. Why create the world in 7 days and have the physical laws make us believe that it isn't the case ?

I have found two theories about it :

François-René de Chateaubriand* (1768-1848) = The dinosaurs, the fossils, the prehistoric[SUP]#[/SUP] men never really existed but are artefacts created by God in order to mislead mankind in their interpretation of history so they may not be able to prove His existence through scientific means.

"François-René de Chateaubriand la résume ainsi : les dinosaures, fossiles, hommes préhistoriques, etc. n'auraient ─ selon cette thèse ─ pas réellement existé mais seraient des artefacts disposés par Dieu pour troubler l'homme dans le jugement de son histoire, afin qu'il ne puisse pas prouver l'existence de Dieu de manière scientifique."

The Jews :

Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify it. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University.

(to be continued)

* Sorry, I couldn't find an English version.
# Prehistoric men means men who lived before history as we know it, not ape men.... it's not a cuss word...

 

The JWs aren't supposed to believe in the theory of evolution, are they ?

 

Yes, I had hunches that your use of the word "evolutionist" didn't have mainly to do with Josh's insistence to use it despite my petitions not to. That's why I started to talk about semantic issues because I then realized that you wouldn't use it for the same reasons.

I've tried to demonstrate that the atheistic evolutionists aren't the only ones to believe that geologic (and biologic, in my opinion, without evolution being involved of course) process may have taken more time than many believe to get the way we see them nowadays. I'm used to making this distinction and I'm sorry if I misread your post for lack of discernment. Therefore, the use of the word "evolutionists" may either be improper or lacking precision, just as I did with the Creationists.

We've both had different walks of life but each of us has fought our own way the kind of mindset depicted so brilliantly and so conspicuously in this film. It'll never be outdated and mankind remains the same as it was hundreds of years ago....

 

I'm gonna try and push my reasoning a bit further.

Just for the sake of having the opinion of y'all.

For example, I think that we should get rid of the simplistic pattern "wicked scientists" VS "good (YE) creationists". Aren't things more complicated and subtil than the mere : I don't believe in God and as a consequence, I'll reject any evidence that contradicts my atheistic point of view ?

I mean, there is a huge gap between denying the veracity of evolution because that's just an interpretation of how things got the way they are and/or denying the existence of fossil remains and the pertinence of decades long geological studies because they contradict one's interpretation of how things got the way they are despite the huge amount of compelling, objective and all-encompassing proofs of it.

Are the scientists necessarily wrong just because they are scientists and that they expect objective results and interpretations ? Are the YE Creationists necessarily right because they humour our belief system ? Results based on religion aren't objective. As an example, just ask yourself why you don't believe in the Muslim account of Creation, despite the fact that you even don't know it, I mean. As I explained in my previous post earlier, results based on scientific results are irrefragable. They are observations, they are fact. One can only refute the interpretation given about them, not their existence. Saying repeatedly that all is theory and that theories are mere theories doesn't make sense. Doesn't the gravitational theory allow men to send satellites and visit other parts of the Solar System ? And yet, it's just a theory. As a consequence, we can't discard scientific and factual observations just because they are parts of a theory. Some conclusions of said theory may be wrong but we can't change the facts.

I think that things are more complicated than just the mere opposition believers/unbelievers, the first being saints and the second being liars/crap.

Should the Bible be the yardstick for scientific issues ? Should we discard certain scientific observations because they contradict the Bible and keep other ones if they support what the Bible says.... or rather and better said : the way we interpret it. Where is the limit ? We've already seen that things aren't so simple.... and history has proven cautiousness to be a wise safeguard in that regard.

 

I don't have all the answers, which is why I am asking questions.

Interestingly, I don't believe the dark skin to be specific to Africa or to anyone's offsprings.

You keep talking about evolution despite repeated calls to broach this discussion otherwise. My line of reasoning has never been from an evolutionist's point of view and as a consequence, I have no answer to give you in that regard. I never said that the huge diversity of life found in the fossil record was the result of evolution. I'm sorry. I don't know what you're talking about.

The earliest rupestrian paintings or else on hand show that the humans haven't much changed since periods of time pretty close to the Deluge. I admit, I don't know why the human traits have changed so much between Adam's creation and the Deluge and have barely changed since the latter.

 

Very interesting questions....

 

Egyptian depiction of Nubians

They have barely changed since the last past 4 000 years and thereabouts.

Source









Source (around 1000 BC)

 

Well, as I said in my previous post, I don't know. However, I won't spin fairy tales to make match what I see with what I believe.

The only lead I can find is that the genetic changes that men have been able to use and "manipulate" in order to create new varieties of wheat, roses and dogs and so on are just what nature can do when the circumstances are favorable. The men just reproduce way faster what time does over centuries or millenia. The wheat we eat nowadays has nothing to do with the one found in old archeological sites. The dogs we pet on our laps nowadays were domesticated wolves at first. I don't think that the world's population was large at the time of the Deluge. Isolated small populations during "long" periods of time do generate the emergence of distinct physical traits. The same thing happens with languages.

Besides, we can't say for sure that such a diversity existed before the Deluge since we don't know how Noah and his family looked like. Did they have already such very distinctive physical traits between each other ? It's however the more likely explanation. The only thing we can be sure of is that the physical appearance changed dramatically in a few centuries after the Deluge (Abraham was born only about 350 years after the Deluge) never to change so much later, whether Noah and his family did look alike or not.

Granted, in the case of Noah and his family not looking alike (especially his daughters-in-law), it'd mean that those past populations weren't so isolated to the point of not having contacts and interbreeding with each other. The physical changes may have therefore happened even earlier, as a consequence for the physical traits to really have the time to get distinct.

As I already said, I don't know. I'm just talking hypothetically.

Was Adam a blond Chinese and Eve a black beauty with liquid green eyes ?

Source



This painting is 2 000 yo. Those guys sure look like Chinese, don't they ?

Source



Dated 200 BC. Even if the faces may be stylized, they all sure look like Chinese.

Well, I thought I had already explained it.

There are factual observations that don't match with what we may happen to read and understand from the Bible.

 

I won't spin fairy tales.

I just don't know.

 

For those who think that the physical laws have changed over time, please read :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable