What was gods purpose for the dinosaurs, and the immense amount of time that elapsed before our existence on earth?

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
What was gods purpose for the dinosaurs, and the immense amount of time that elapsed before our existence on earth?

  I would like to hear some theists opignions on why god would have made the dinosaurs, for what purpose exactly would he have created acient earths beasts and allowed them to run around for hundreds of millions of years.  Or do you believe the dating of these creatures is wrong?  Just looking for opignions, i cant rationalize it, maybe you can try.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote: Do you

fishpaste wrote:

 

 

Do you know what free will is? Do you you what it requires? Do you know what an omnipotent being has to do in order for it to be so?

 

 

  Let's forget the introduction of Free Will and the subsequent downfall of mankind, Original Sin, etc, etc. and move on to the End Game, so to speak.

 

 

  Will Free Will exist in Heaven ?  Free will means the ability to choose wrongly as well as rightly.

 Most Christians, regardless of the denominational differences, believe that they will have Free Will in Heaven  yet they also believe that they will be incapable of sinning.  How is this possible without redefining terms and twisting logic to the breaking point ?

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote:Eloise

fishpaste wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Fishpaste wrote:
Eve was a grown woman.

 

That implies a lot of things which are not true of the biblical Eve, who could not have had the maturity of having lived for some years since she was created as an adult she didn't mature into one, and was moreover so newly made at the moment of the fall she hadn't even been named yet. And she didn't"know better", as is implied by the suggestion that she was an adult, since all the knowledge she had to draw on about the apple was a couple of conflicting  claims about it's quality.

So I have to agree with PDW, Fishpaste, the analogy of a kid in a room with a gun is apt. Eve of Eden was characterised, for all intents and purposes, as a baby.

 

Eve had the capacity for language, the ability to walk upright,

Okay I will grant you that those things are in the book.

Fishpaste wrote:

the ability to sustain herself, the ability to clean herself,

How do you know this? There is no such context built in the genesis story, it goes directly from her being made to her being decieved. Those are assumptions and projections, the book says nothing of the sort.

FishPaste wrote:

the ability to be well aware of her surroundings

There is nothing uniquely adult about this ability, six year olds can be aware of thir surroundings. An adult ability, in this respect, is quantitative not qualitative, and it is well established in the book, Eve didn't know enough to see trouble coming.

FishPaste wrote:

and was capable of having a relationship to the point of marrying adam.

Woah! Wait a minute, have you even read the book?

Eve doesn't marry Adam, she doesn't have any relationship with Adam that implies a choice or will on her behalf that they become married, that's all projected assumption. The fact is, Adam declares her his "wife" on sight and she can hardly argue the point since Adam is the inventor of this brand new concept of companionship.

Fishpaste wrote:

Given that,

Seeing as though we aren't "given that" or anything like it, for that matter....

FishPaste wrote:

one can assume that when god created her

....don't you think you've made enough assumptions already?

FishPaste wrote:

Hence, we should treat her as a mature adult woman, capable of making adult decisions.

Capable of making what adult decisions? They lived, uneducated, naked and naive in Eden, they were expected to lay in luxury eat sweet food from trees, question nothing, do no thinking or reasoning of anything, and be obliged only to not piss off the old man or he'll cut you off .... so... a mature adult A la P.Hilton then? Wow. Yeah we should really cut God some slack on this huh?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, the fact of the matter

Well, the fact of the matter is that many of us were former theists, so we ought to be able to answer the question in some sense. At least as we would have a number of years previously. Let me give it a try.


Omphalos hypothesis: The earth was created about 6,000 years ago. All the evidence to the contrary was planted at the moment of creation to confuse the matter.


Conservative Anglican: Who really cares? Religion is about how one should live one's life. Sure, there are no loss of people in the world who have strange ideas about religion but as long as you have a solid grasp on the idea that some dude got nailed to a tree for saying that you should be nice to people, then we have that much in common.


According to my cat: First off, you need to accept that humans lack the mental capacity to understand the concepts of clawsmology and taileolgy. Once you have that much down, you are at the start of matters.


Simply put, cats have access to the full on cativerse which is far larger than anything that humans could ever hope to understand. Feed me, provide clean litter and get your hands on me when I demand that you do so and you are good to go.


Evolution? Yes, we did that. Just look at the fossil record. Felids were around when you were still in the trees. Do you have any idea how much hard work was involved in going CHOMP! on those of your ancestors who could not be bothered to stand up? Dude, it took a couple of million years just to get you to develop shoulders for us to rest on.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:How do you know

 

Quote:

How do you know this? There is no such context built in the genesis story, it goes directly from her being made to her being decieved. Those are assumptions and projections, the book says nothing of the sort.

 

You use the term directly very loosely here, and I think you're aware of this, the text is as follows: "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV"

Most biblical scholars would view the intermission from chapter 2 to three, and Adam's rites to eve in chapter 2 as spanning the course of a significant amount of time. A literary "and they lived happily, until one fateful day..."

 

At least this is how Powell and Vermes take it. Many non-literalist scholars think differently for various reasons, but I'll email some and see what I come up with, interesting proposition indeed.

 

 

Quote:

There is nothing uniquely adult about this ability, six year olds can be aware of thir surroundings. An adult ability, in this respect, is quantitative not qualitative, and it is well established in the book, Eve didn't know enough to see trouble coming.

Eve had to be aware of where to use the toilet, she had to be aware of the need to feed herself, she had to be aware of the animals around her, as well as communicate effectively, this is proven by her conversing with the snake as well as adam, and at the same time it is proven that she can reason by her deductions concerning the tree. Does a child even know what wisdom is?

 

Quote:
Woah! Wait a minute, have you even read the book?

Eve doesn't marry Adam, she doesn't have any relationship with Adam that implies a choice or will on her behalf that they become married, that's all projected assumption. The fact is, Adam declares her his "wife" on sight and she can hardly argue the point since Adam is the inventor of this brand new concept of companionship.

This was indeed a vital oversight on my part, when I put on my theology cap I tend to sometimes forget about all the chauvinist stupidity in the bible. That said, in order for them to even begin to have a concept of marriage, or companionship, or any kind of social relationship, they would have had to have some emotional intelligence, as well as socialization abilities. innately acquired of course, since they were the only ones there.

 

Quote:
Capable of making what adult decisions? They lived, uneducated, naked and naive in Eden, they were expected to lay in luxury eat sweet food from trees, question nothing, do no thinking or reasoning of anything, and be obliged only to not piss off the old man or he'll cut you off .... so... a mature adult A la P.Hilton then? Wow. Yeah we should really cut God some slack on this huh?

 

Paris hilton is stupid, but is indeed an adult, and is responsible for her own actions. This isn't really asking for much. "Hey, I'm the smartest friggen guy in the universe, and I say if you eat that, you're going to die, so don't friggen eat it"

Even paris hilton, hell, even kim kardashian wouldn't eat at that point. However, with the help of the temptation from the snake, ya never know.

 

Quote:
Let's forget the introduction of Free Will and the subsequent downfall of mankind, Original Sin, etc, etc. and move on to the End Game, so to speak.

 

 

  Will Free Will exist in Heaven ?  Free will means the ability to choose wrongly as well as rightly.

 Most Christians, regardless of the denominational differences, believe that they will have Free Will in Heaven  yet they also believe that they will be incapable of sinning.  How is this possible without redefining terms and twisting logic to the breaking point ?

 

The common christian answer to this is "you can sin, but you simply won't want to, you'll be in a state of bliss."

 

The question then is does this mean we don't have free will in the first place? Consider the pursuit of happiness in life, are we hardwired to inevitably seek some form of happiness at some time unless manically depressed or mentally afflicted? Or can we choose to not lead a life based on emotions? Can we choose actions with no subconscious emotional benefit? And what really is an altruistic action?

Now this was a good question.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote: He did not

fishpaste wrote:

 

He did not lie. Adam and eve could have been immortal, but decided in their foolishness to disobey and eat the fruit, sealing their fate to inevitable death, and that of humans to inevitable deaths as well.

you mean it doesn't say whether they were immortal or not..... so its only reasonable to assume they were not. meaning god lied

 

fishpaste wrote:

 

The reason we have sin is because we disobeyed god (this isn't what I believe, since I don't believe in sin, but this is what christians believe). Had we listened, we wouldn't have it. The reason it was introduced to punish us was for love rather then anger. (Cue billions of atheists making jokes about god being a sadist and going "oh so love is burning people in a lake of fire forever?" )

That makes no sense.... (not you, what christians believe ) but it is what i got from the story. what do you mean had we listened.. we were not there. 

 

btw i don't think there are billions of atheists in the world.

 

 

 

fishpaste wrote:

What? What you're saying doesn't even make sense. Are you a bad person because you let an african child die?

you missed the point. the point is that it doesn't follow that because we have knowledge of what is good and what is evil that there is sin in the world. If we didn't have that knowledge there still would be sin we just wouldn't know

 

Quote:
i.e. the snake tricked them.

 

The snake tempted them, as part of your quotation shows:

 

It was eve who saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise. The snake only reinforces what she already desires, and pushes her over the limit her weak willpower has.

 

 

I don't deny there is temptation involved, but it is temptation on false information, she desired something good. She would of had no way of knowing what she was doing was wrong as at that point she had not eaten the fruit so she would not know the differance between right and wrong. tree good for food says she should eat from it, looked nice is no reason not to eat it, to become wise a good reason to eat. those are not good and evil questions so that is what see knew. disobeying god is a good/evil question so she wouldn't know about that.

 

 

the whole story is stupid in any event.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:you mean it

Tapey wrote:

you mean it doesn't say whether they were immortal or not..... so its only reasonable to assume they were not. meaning god lied

Let's see, what's more reasonable, a being did something that it is impossible for it to do, or he stated that if they ate the fruit, they would die. As in if they didn't eat the fruit, the would live. Why would adam and eve need to ever die if the kingdom of heaven was bonded with the garden of eden in grace?

 

Also note, that the scholar's opinion is once again on my side, at least in the case of vermes, can't speak for spong on this one, or the other non-literalists.

Quote:
That makes no sense.... (not you, what christians believe ) but it is what i got from the story. what do you mean had we listened.. we were not there.

Precisely, the doctrine of original sin is one of the most illogical aspects of the bible.

Quote:
btw i don't think there are billions of atheists in the world.

 

OH SCHNAP, fact check pwnage. I bow before you oh detector of inflated numbers.

 

Quote:
you missed the point. the point is that it doesn't follow that because we have knowledge of what is good and what is evil that there is sin in the world. If we didn't have that knowledge there still would be sin we just wouldn't know

Eh? How? If we didn't have the knowledge, we would have never fallen from grace, hence there would be no sin, cain wouldn't have killed abel, it would be pretty much like heaven.

 

Unless god made ANOTHER test for humanity for some reason.

Quote:
I don't deny there is temptation involved, but it is temptation on false information, she desired something good. She would of had no way of knowing what she was doing was wrong as at that point she had not eaten the fruit so she would not know the differance between right and wrong. tree good for food says she should eat from it, looked nice is no reason not to eat it, to become wise a good reason to eat. those are not good and evil questions so that is what see knew. disobeying god is a good/evil question so she wouldn't know about that.

 WHAT? That was one of the most important elements of the story, to have faith and trust in your father (representing parents and the heavenly father). It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is about love. The point for most of the duration of the old and new testament is that grace transcends emotions or moralities. If you have god's love then nothing can go wrong by default. And by finding that, we can discover ourselves, hence why the tree of knowledge was unnecessary.

 

It was eve's desire for more then this, her greed and her curiosity, plus the temptations of evil, that led her to eating the fruit.

 

Now what you should have said is "god put the snake there in the first place" which raises a much more interesting question.

 

Quote:
the whole story is stupid in any event.

 

I partially disagree, as I think on the whole it's quite interesting and layered by comparison to other texts or religious scriptures of the time. That said, a lot of the parts were stupid, and didn't make sense, like adam simply taking eve as a wife, and eve being such a bimbette, and curiousity being frowned upon and later praised in songs of solomon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But come on dude, at least

"But come on dude, at least be consistent in your value of scientific inquiry. This forum isn't exactly the archetype of productive discussion and fair discourse."

This topic is far enough outside my realm of expertise that I'm sticking only to points I can defend. I can't say I've seen much science in it at all, so I've stuck with definitions and mathematics. Should someone bring up noah though, I could have a field day. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote: Quote:How

fishpaste wrote:

 

Quote:

How do you know this? There is no such context built in the genesis story, it goes directly from her being made to her being decieved. Those are assumptions and projections, the book says nothing of the sort.

 

You use the term directly very loosely here, and I think you're aware of this, the text is as follows: "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV"

Most biblical scholars would view the intermission from chapter 2 to three, and Adam's rites to eve in chapter 2 as spanning the course of a significant amount of time. A literary "and they lived happily, until one fateful day..."

Well, I'm not necessarily saying that no time actually elapsed in the narrative, although there is a certain briskness to the account IMO, but rather that the context of that time is missing from the narrative, there's nothing to be said about it which must not first be assumed.

FishPaste wrote:

Quote:

There is nothing uniquely adult about this ability, six year olds can be aware of thir surroundings. An adult ability, in this respect, is quantitative not qualitative, and it is well established in the book, Eve didn't know enough to see trouble coming.

Eve had to be aware of where to use the toilet, she had to be aware of the need to feed herself, she had to be aware of the animals around her,

Absolutely, and there is nothing especially mature about having those skills. Maturity, as is implied by the word in modern experience, would be demonstrated in the extent to which a person utilises those skills well, maturity implies breadth and depth of knowledge as opposed to a "sum total", I would say, wouldn't you?

FishPaste wrote:

as well as communicate effectively, this is proven by her conversing with the snake as well as adam,

I've already conceded this much, Eve could communicate sufficiently.

Fishpaste wrote:

and at the same time it is proven that she can reason by her deductions concerning the tree. Does a child even know what wisdom is?

 

The sum of Eve's depicted experience in wisdom is God. And God is good, so no dazzling powers of deduction are required. Wise=God, Eve doesn't need to have a concept of wisdom, she has an exemplar.

 

Quote:

This was indeed a vital oversight on my part, when I put on my theology cap I tend to sometimes forget about all the chauvinist stupidity in the bible. That said, in order for them to even begin to have a concept of marriage, or companionship, or any kind of social relationship, they would have had to have some emotional intelligence, as well as socialization abilities. innately acquired of course, since they were the only ones there.

Nup. Seriously, Fishpaste, this story predates and moreover was an original means of establishing virtually all of those social mores and graces you seem to be taking for granted as "innate" in "first people". Why would the storytellers bother upholding these traditional means of establishing social statutes if they already existed, if "God" put them in wholesale at creation? Makes no sense.

 

 

Quote:

 

Paris hilton is stupid, but is indeed an adult, and is responsible for her own actions. This isn't really asking for much. "Hey, I'm the smartest friggen guy in the universe, and I say if you eat that, you're going to die, so don't friggen eat it"

Even paris hilton, hell, even kim kardashian wouldn't eat at that point. However, with the help of the temptation from the snake, ya never know.

See that's where the trouble is, the woman can't possibly be very bright, we may not be given in the story any insight into her competence, but a specific line at the end of the chapter is reserved to be sure we are informed of her naivete. She is given rules to follow but no education, and then, what education can she possibly have been given anyway in a world with no history and no intellectual challenges, in a world where, essentially, the only knowledge that exists is God's and he has made it quite clear that it's not for sharing.

This, clearly not possibly mature or self reliant in any sense that we might recognise, woman meets in her life precisely two figures who claim knowledge that she doesn't have and one of them is almighty God - so what precisely is she left to reckon the other one might be?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
"If was Eve, I would

"If was Eve, I would definitely have not eaten the apple"

 

That is the reason your Devils Advocate argument is invalid.  The sum of your experiences makes you understand the consequances of that act.  Eve's experience was insifficient.  Given that the results of simply eating an apple caused so much misery to Eve as a result of her ejection from the garden and being stripped of whatever blessed state she had been given by God then either:

1. Eve was an adult but God did not give her enough information to make an informed choice.  God is the wellspring of all her knowledge and environment, and it was not sufficient.

2. Eve was a 'child' incapeable of understanding the repercussions of her action.

3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibally* stupid one.

4. Eve was created with an evil soul and that corruption caused her to sin.

 

I can't really think of any other options, if we assume the story is true, and every case is a direct fault of God, not Eve.  No reasonably well-informed, mature adult would make the choice she made at such a high potential cost.  That is why it is a valid argument against the literal interpretation of the story...it simply doesn't make sense unless you interpret it as a myth.  An informed, mature adult with a 'pure' soul would never make that choice.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I have never really given

mellestad wrote:

"If was Eve, I would definitely have not eaten the apple"

 

That is the reason your Devils Advocate argument is invalid.  The sum of your experiences makes you understand the consequances of that act.  Eve's experience was insifficient.  Given that the results of simply eating an apple caused so much misery to Eve as a result of her ejection from the garden and being stripped of whatever blessed state she had been given by God then either:

1. Eve was an adult but God did not give her enough information to make an informed choice.  God is the wellspring of all her knowledge and environment, and it was not sufficient.

2. Eve was a 'child' incapeable of understanding the repercussions of her action.

3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibally* stupid one.

4. Eve was created with an evil soul and that corruption caused her to sin.

 

I can't really think of any other options, if we assume the story is true, and every case is a direct fault of God, not Eve.  No reasonably well-informed, mature adult would make the choice she made at such a high potential cost.  That is why it is a valid argument against the literal interpretation of the story...it simply doesn't make sense unless you interpret it as a myth.  An informed, mature adult with a 'pure' soul would never make that choice.

 

Much thought to the issue of the Original Sin and Eve and the apple. From my point of view it has always seemed pretty much the silliest way of trying to explain how it is that social animal like a human would have a conscience that allowed them to establish what was right or wrong in the context of the group in which they were living. No one can argue that right and wrong have cultural imperatives and that they evolve over time. In the middle ages people cheered as 'witches' were burned - I can't imagine that happening now.

But breaking the possibilities for Eve down like this is revealing. Eve can't have had any appreciation of what she was about to unleash on the world and if she had done, I can't imagine she'd have snacked on that stupid apple in the first place. An apple from the tree of knowledge! What a fucking joke.

Going sideways I personally don't think Eve or any other human actually had/has free will. If you consider everything we don't know about genetics, the impact of environment (including religious instruction) and physiological elements like sex drive, the idea humans are sent out on a level playing field to do good or evil is laughable. None of this even considers the fact god cheerily gave satan dominion of the earth and he's running around pulling the wool over all our eyes.

I think the last sentence of Mellestad's post puts it in a box for me. 'An informed, mature adult with a pure soul'.  It's pretty obvious Eve acted like a naughty ten year old boy or girl who jumped the fence and pinched an apple from father maggot's crop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
This is the correct answer:

This is the correct answer: 3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibly* stupid one.

 

Arguably you could say she wasn't "stupid", but simply rather easily manipulated. One could say these are the same thing, but that's fallacious.

 

And I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I agree with the christians on this issue of the bible being a logical one with a simple answer, the one in the OP that is.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote:This is the

fishpaste wrote:

This is the correct answer: 3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibly* stupid one.

 

Arguably you could say she wasn't "stupid", but simply rather easily manipulated. One could say these are the same thing, but that's fallacious.

 

And I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I agree with the christians on this issue of the bible being a logical one with a simple answer, the one in the OP that is.

 

There is nothing but conjecture and bald assumption to support that option, and if it was the case then it is still directly God's fault for creating an idiot and damning humanity as a result of his horribly flawed creation.  It still flies against the "free will" theory.

What would the theistic response be?  God created a moron that doomed us all through her God given lack of intellectual capacity, but it is still somehow her fault?  The atheist response is going to be that God should understand human behavior well enough to predict such a simple situation when he created Eve, so he is still at fault.  If option 3 is 'correct' then he *wanted* man to fall and he rigged the game to make it happen.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not good enough, sorry.

fishpaste wrote:

This is the correct answer: 3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibly* stupid one.

Arguably you could say she wasn't "stupid", but simply rather easily manipulated. One could say these are the same thing, but that's fallacious.

And I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I agree with the christians on this issue of the bible being a logical one with a simple answer, the one in the OP that is.

 

Given the eternal future of billions of tormented sinners hangs on the alleged actions of this much maligned character, you're going to have pony up the big ones here.

God can't have loaded the dice without being evil. He can't have not told Eve the ramifications or she was not informed in the way a loving god would inform his favourites.

This means he was either not loving or not a very smart god. In fact he sounds like a total git.

Now I read it again (groan) the bible story makes adam and eve sound like a couple of innocent children. They don't sound evil. They just sound utterly naive.

Does total innocence and a complete lack of understanding underpin the rigorous comprehension demanded by a concept like free will? I don't think so...

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
fishpaste wrote:This is the

fishpaste wrote:

This is the correct answer: 3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibly* stupid one.

 

Arguably you could say she wasn't "stupid", but simply rather easily manipulated. One could say these are the same thing, but that's fallacious.

 

And I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I agree with the christians on this issue of the bible being a logical one with a simple answer, the one in the OP that is.

Aside from the all this speculation of what the writer(s) had in mind when they put together the allegory of the G of E, just what does that last statement mean, and how does it relate to the question about dinosaurs, etc, put in the OP?

"the Bible is a logical one" - a logical what? In terms of what logical argument? 

A "simple answer" to what? The OP?, or something to do with the G of E story?

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:fishpaste

BobSpence1 wrote:

fishpaste wrote:

This is the correct answer: 3. Eve was an adult, but an *incredibly* stupid one.

 

Arguably you could say she wasn't "stupid", but simply rather easily manipulated. One could say these are the same thing, but that's fallacious.

 

And I'm not playing devil's advocate here, I agree with the christians on this issue of the bible being a logical one with a simple answer, the one in the OP that is.

Aside from the all this speculation of what the writer(s) had in mind when they put together the allegory of the G of E, just what does that last statement mean, and how does it relate to the question about dinosaurs, etc, put in the OP?

"the Bible is a logical one" - a logical what? In terms of what logical argument? 

A "simple answer" to what? The OP?, or something to do with the G of E story?

 

 

 

Perhaps my syntax was off there, I may have been reading too much british crap:

 

"I agree with the christians on this issue of the bible being a logical one" as in this particular issue is logical, rather then illogical, as there are parts of the bible that do not deal in logic. And yes, the answer I put to the OP applies also to the G of E story, since that's a part of my answer. part of the major premise of the syllogism was that god made everything with the exception of sin. Proving that he also made sin wouldn't really hurt the argument at all, but it would discredit the reliability of the premises slightly.


Visitor (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Dinosaurs helped shape our

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Visitor wrote:Dinosaurs

Visitor wrote:

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.

A bit of an over-statement. Our ecosystem is dependent at least as much on insects and bacteria. The further up the food chain you go the less impact you tend to have. They contributed , of course, just like all major groups of animals and plants.

The ecosystem would certainly still exist, maybe with some differences, but evolution would ensure that the major ecological niches were still occupied by something.

After all, a pretty vibrant ecosystem had developed in the million years or so of life before they appeared.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


fishpapste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Visitor

BobSpence1 wrote:

Visitor wrote:

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.

A bit of an over-statement. Our ecosystem is dependent at least as much on insects and bacteria. The further up the food chain you go the less impact you tend to have. They contributed , of course, just like all major groups of animals and plants.

The ecosystem would certainly still exist, maybe with some differences, but evolution would ensure that the major ecological niches were still occupied by something.

After all, a pretty vibrant ecosystem had developed in the million years or so of life before they appeared.

 

Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
fishpapste wrote:BobSpence1

fishpapste wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Visitor wrote:

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.

A bit of an over-statement. Our ecosystem is dependent at least as much on insects and bacteria. The further up the food chain you go the less impact you tend to have. They contributed , of course, just like all major groups of animals and plants.

The ecosystem would certainly still exist, maybe with some differences, but evolution would ensure that the major ecological niches were still occupied by something.

After all, a pretty vibrant ecosystem had developed in the million years or so of life before they appeared.

 

Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?

do you believe that as in the dinosaurs were part of the evolutionary process or that humans hunted them to survive (a la Hovind)?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
fishpapste wrote:BobSpence1

fishpapste wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Visitor wrote:

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.

A bit of an over-statement. Our ecosystem is dependent at least as much on insects and bacteria. The further up the food chain you go the less impact you tend to have. They contributed , of course, just like all major groups of animals and plants.

The ecosystem would certainly still exist, maybe with some differences, but evolution would ensure that the major ecological niches were still occupied by something.

After all, a pretty vibrant ecosystem had developed in the million years or so of life before they appeared.

 

Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?

Only in the sense that if the environment was unsuitable for such things as dinosaurs, it probably would have also been unsuitable for us.

But seriously, mammals evolved before the dinosaurs, and it has been argued that their domination of the ecosystem kept mammals from becoming common. Then when the dinos died out, mammals emerged to take over.

It is just as arguable, if not more so, that if the dinosaurs had taken longer to establish their dominant position, mammals may have become dominant much earlier.

What is your justification for your position? A link perhaps?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
fishpapste wrote:Spence,

fishpapste wrote:
Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?

We probably wouldn't exist in the sense that the world would be different due to, what is it called, the butterfly effect? But, they're certainly not necessary for humans to exist. An omnipotent God could have easily created a world that provided conditions for humans no different from this world without dinosaurs.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:fishpapste

quote=BobSpence1]

fishpapste wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Visitor wrote:

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.

A bit of an over-statement. Our ecosystem is dependent at least as much on insects and bacteria. The further up the food chain you go the less impact you tend to have. They contributed , of course, just like all major groups of animals and plants.

The ecosystem would certainly still exist, maybe with some differences, but evolution would ensure that the major ecological niches were still occupied by something.

After all, a pretty vibrant ecosystem had developed in the million years or so of life before they appeared.

 

Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?

Only in the sense that if the environment was unsuitable for such things as dinosaurs, it probably would have also been unsuitable for us.

But seriously, mammals evolved before the dinosaurs, and it has been argued that their domination of the ecosystem kept mammals from becoming common. Then when the dinos died out, mammals emerged to take over.

It is just as arguable, if not more so, that if the dinosaurs had taken longer to establish their dominant position, mammals may have become dominant much earlier.

What is your justification for your position? A link perhaps?

 

The mammals we evolved from lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, and they kept various mutations that were handy to them during that time. If I remember correctly, the triassic was around the time the four chambered heart developed in lizards from fish, later developing in mammals. It goes without saying that millions of the things that are still present in mammals today that make us who we are were established by interaction with dinosauria and archosaurs from the millions of years they roamed the earth. Take all the dinosaurs away and mammals would have been significantly different, for one, they would have definitely gotten larger, and would not have had all of those years of mutations they did from the dinosaurs (developing advanced avoidance and stealth capabilities, burrowing skills, eye sight, avoidance instincts). It could very well be possible for the tree of life to have branched in a way that hominidae would still come into existence, but it goes without saying that they would be significantly different, arguably unrecognizable save a few physical features.

evolution is hierarchical and has a snowballing nature. This makes changes in allele frequencies very sensitive, if one thing ends up different way back in the tree of life, the branching patterns we see could drastically change. I don't have a direct reference for this on hand, but I could ask some of my friends about it, I'm quite certain this is generally agreed upon in evolutionary biology.


fishpaste (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

fishpapste wrote:
Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?

We probably wouldn't exist in the sense that the world would be different due to, what is it called, the butterfly effect? But, they're certainly not necessary for humans to exist. An omnipotent God could have easily created a world that provided conditions for humans no different from this world without dinosaurs.

 

Well duh, an omnipotent god can do whatever he wants so long as it's not logically contradictory.

 

He didn't decide to simply put humans here though, he wanted them to evolve, to glorify himself.

 

I also overlooked your question earlier, sorry about that. Creation and evolution in terms of gloriousness are subjective, but I must say I find the concept of evolution much more beautiful in the way it works out, almost like the matrix having super-detailed algorithms to run the world, whereas the idea of creation leaves the natural world seemingly less unified, making animals have nothing to do with humans, even though they are made out of the same stuff.

 

I think the reason most creationists don't sympathize with the evolutionary biologists who are also christian is that they think they are simply "copping out" or "jumping on the bandwagon", when in reality they probably have thought this through more then them.

 

nowhere near enough thought though, since they still believe in the christian god.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
  fishpapste

 fishpapste wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

fishpapste wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Visitor wrote:

Dinosaurs helped shape our ecosystem that we have today. Without them the ecosystem that provides our basic needs would not exist.

A bit of an over-statement. Our ecosystem is dependent at least as much on insects and bacteria. The further up the food chain you go the less impact you tend to have. They contributed , of course, just like all major groups of animals and plants.

The ecosystem would certainly still exist, maybe with some differences, but evolution would ensure that the major ecological niches were still occupied by something.

After all, a pretty vibrant ecosystem had developed in the million years or so of life before they appeared.

 

Spence, surely you understand that if they dinosaurs did not exist, we would not exist, right?

Only in the sense that if the environment was unsuitable for such things as dinosaurs, it probably would have also been unsuitable for us.

But seriously, mammals evolved before the dinosaurs, and it has been argued that their domination of the ecosystem kept mammals from becoming common. Then when the dinos died out, mammals emerged to take over.

It is just as arguable, if not more so, that if the dinosaurs had taken longer to establish their dominant position, mammals may have become dominant much earlier.

What is your justification for your position? A link perhaps?

 

The mammals we evolved from lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, and they kept various mutations that were handy to them during that time. If I remember correctly, the triassic was around the time the four chambered heart developed in lizards from fish, later developing in mammals. It goes without saying that millions of the things that are still present in mammals today that make us who we are were established by interaction with dinosauria and archosaurs from the millions of years they roamed the earth. Take all the dinosaurs away and mammals would have been significantly different, for one, they would have definitely gotten larger, and would not have had all of those years of mutations they did from the dinosaurs (developing advanced avoidance and stealth capabilities, burrowing skills, eye sight, avoidance instincts). It could very well be possible for the tree of life to have branched in a way that hominidae would still come into existence, but it goes without saying that they would be significantly different, arguably unrecognizable save a few physical features.

evolution is hierarchical and has a snowballing nature. This makes changes in allele frequencies very sensitive, if one thing ends up different way back in the tree of life, the branching patterns we see could drastically change. I don't have a direct reference for this on hand, but I could ask some of my friends about it, I'm quite certain this is generally agreed upon in evolutionary biology.

So the four-chambered heart, or at least the precursors to it evolved before the dinosaurs branched off the common ancestor with us. Frogs have three chambers, so amphibians were already on the way to it from the simple tubular structure. Turtles seem to have an intermediate structure, with a hint of a new partition forming.

So it looks like it evolved to completion in mammals, and several reptiloid lineages, such as dinosaurs (ultimately being passed on to birds, as their descendants), and crocodiles.

We certainly could not have got it from 'interacting with' dinosaurs. Unless that included cross-breeding, which seems rather unlikely.

If dinosaurs had died out earlier, mammals would have emerged to fill similar niches, and the large predatory mammals would have provided just as much pressure on the other mammalian species as the predatory dinosaurs would have, as they did in recent dino-free ages.I

I haven't seen a reference link yet.

EDIT: evolution is not particularly hierarchical, current understanding has much more like a tangled bush than a neat branching tree.

It merely blindly tends to randomly fill available niches.

It is true that small random variations can significantly change the particular forms  of life that emerge down the track, but the broader categories are less sensitive, being mainly determined by nature of the environment and the dynamics of interacting with other species. It certainly has no purpose or ultimate target.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:It just

Eloise wrote:

It just occurred to me, by this formula that Gaffer has suggested, you noted we are now ~5.1 (streeeeetched out) days into the life of the universe (assuming inception at the big bang). So according to the bible the sea "teems with living creatures", but we, humans, aren't arriving till tomorrow.

No, we're in day #6 because 5 complete days have already passed.  Assuming 0.1 days is how long humans have existed, we can multiply by 10 and come up with when the world REALLY ends, instead of believing it'll be 2012 ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Some theists are worse at

Some theists are worse at basic logic than I thought, and that's really saying something...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Some theists

Vastet wrote:
Some theists are worse at basic logic than I thought, and that's really saying something...

Right, because a reference to a Science-Fiction movie and a bogus explanation of how old the Universe is obviously have everything to do with "Logic".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Some theists are worse at basic logic than I thought, and that's really saying something...

Right, because a reference to a Science-Fiction movie and a bogus explanation of how old the Universe is obviously have everything to do with "Logic".

Right, because a sci fi movie and a bogus explanation for the forming of the universe were used as arguments.
Oh... wait.... it's that theist stupidity again. What a moron.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Right,

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Right, because a reference to a Science-Fiction movie and a bogus explanation of how old the Universe is obviously have everything to do with "Logic"

You know, crappy science fiction and bogus explanations have everything in common with religion.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Weird things christians believe in...

 

Some weird things christians believe in:

 

Mental Telepathy, Time Travel, Zombies, Fairies, People that can fly, spontaneous combustion, Aliens, talking animals, invisible men, mind reading, X-ray vision, magic, disembodied voices...

 

Can anyone thing of more?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck