Personally I don’t believe that Genesis is the literal truth, I believe it is a story inspired by some actual events but written down by fallible humans centuries later. I don’t believe in the creation account literally, I’m a big bang and evolution girl. In my cosmology, god created the universe by writing the laws of physics and initiating the big bang, knowing and intending that in a several billion years humans would evolve. However, I think that the story in Genesis is a really interesting metaphor for creation which would have made sense to people at the time when it was written and still has theological value today. I think you are right that there were supposedly no carnivores in Eden though. When I imagine what life would be like without original sin, I think that humanity would be all be exceptionally peaceful hunter gatherers. I don’t think that our population would get out of control any more than any other animal’s population does. We would actually fill a biological niche rather than existing outside as we do now. Since we would have a much greater closeness with god than we currently enjoy, perhaps the pain and death which are a part of life would not be the terrible things that they are to us now.
You are right, lots of people lived to be many centuries old according to Genesis, the record goes to Methuselah at 969 years, but like I said above I don’t believe that this is the literal truth. Even if it was though, the people in Genesis don’t follow The Key as many of them were actually very clever in addition to being long lived. I’m not sure that I agree with you about there being a balance, I think it’s a fact that some people are way luckier than others both in the abilities and the circumstances they are born into. I’ve met people who are brilliant and beautiful and charming, who have happy marriages, in my opinion you can’t explain away that kind of luck and say that they pay for it in other areas, I call it hitting the genetic jackpot. I think that Card gave Bean the short life, so that the reader wouldn’t hate him for his gifts.
Ender's Game vs. Ender's Shadow
-
thisislissa
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
Ender
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 16:59
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I agree with your opinion on Genesis, and the Bible as a whole for that matter. I think that people spend too much time trying to figure out what happened according to the Bible and trying to learn the actual facts, but I tend to believe that the stories in the Bible are just that, stories. They have some facts and bits and pieces thrown in, but it's not all perfect , rather just a way to learn and to teach. Most of the stories in the Bible can be used to explain some life virtue that everyone should learn. And I think that is how it was meant to be, until fallible humans, as you said, added some stuff and possibly even took stuff away.
I do have a question for you though. I've never really met someone who was a Christian, believed and had faith in God, and still believed in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. I've heard of different ways it could be explained factually, but nothing that has ever really stuck for me. I remember watching something about some guy giving a seminar (I can't remember his name) trying to explain the Great Flood and Noah's Ark. He said that at one time, there was another layer to the atmosphere, composed primarily of water, and that when the flood happened, it was that layer raining onto Earth. That would explain how we don't live as long, because we are exposed to more sunlight than before (due to the missing layer) and the flood itself, but something doesn't seem right about it. As he was explaining the Bible in these seminar video's, everything seemed to fit together too nicely, everything was perfect, but in a way, not. He had an explanation for everything. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but it's hard to explain. I guess my question is, are you able to share your theories on the bible and evolution? How do you combine the two into one co-hesive theory that works? How do you seperate what may be fact from story? How do you decide which parts are true and which parts are fables when there is nothing that explains it? Or do we just take the Bible and try to learn what we can from it without going into the whole "what's real and what's not" arguement?
What was kind of working in the back of my head was that if the Creation story made sense and fit in the minds of people back then, and the Big Bang Theory is what makes sense now, is it possible that both are wrong and there might have been a third option that won't make sense for millions of years?
I guess I can see where you're coming from when it comes to Bean. The story wouldn't have been as good if he didn't have the urgency of death looming over him at every point, much like it was when he was younger. Anton's Key is an interesting subject, but I'm not sure how much of it can be related to truth. It's an interesting concept though.
I do have a question for you though. I've never really met someone who was a Christian, believed and had faith in God, and still believed in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. I've heard of different ways it could be explained factually, but nothing that has ever really stuck for me. I remember watching something about some guy giving a seminar (I can't remember his name) trying to explain the Great Flood and Noah's Ark. He said that at one time, there was another layer to the atmosphere, composed primarily of water, and that when the flood happened, it was that layer raining onto Earth. That would explain how we don't live as long, because we are exposed to more sunlight than before (due to the missing layer) and the flood itself, but something doesn't seem right about it. As he was explaining the Bible in these seminar video's, everything seemed to fit together too nicely, everything was perfect, but in a way, not. He had an explanation for everything. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but it's hard to explain. I guess my question is, are you able to share your theories on the bible and evolution? How do you combine the two into one co-hesive theory that works? How do you seperate what may be fact from story? How do you decide which parts are true and which parts are fables when there is nothing that explains it? Or do we just take the Bible and try to learn what we can from it without going into the whole "what's real and what's not" arguement?
What was kind of working in the back of my head was that if the Creation story made sense and fit in the minds of people back then, and the Big Bang Theory is what makes sense now, is it possible that both are wrong and there might have been a third option that won't make sense for millions of years?
I guess I can see where you're coming from when it comes to Bean. The story wouldn't have been as good if he didn't have the urgency of death looming over him at every point, much like it was when he was younger. Anton's Key is an interesting subject, but I'm not sure how much of it can be related to truth. It's an interesting concept though.
-
ResonantAleph
- Posts: 56
- Joined: 21 May 2008, 14:04
- Bookshelf Size: 0
The seminar you saw was probably put out by Kent Hovind who is currently serving ten years in prison for various tax violations. Although I've never read Ender's Game, I've done a good deal of research regarding Creationism vs. the Big Bang and would love to chime in if I could.
“Bring something incomprehensible into the world!”
―Gilles Deleuze
―Gilles Deleuze
-
Ender
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 16:59
- Bookshelf Size: 0
-
thisislissa
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 18:52
- Bookshelf Size: 0
ResonantAleph,
Feel free to chime in, we’d love to hear from you.
Ender,
There are many Christians who believe in evolution and the big bang however we don’t yell as loudly as either the creation science folks or the atheists who say that evolution disproves god. The video you watched sounds like it came from a creation science guy. These people try to bend science to fit the bible, they can easily fool those who have little scientific background, I think that their approach damages both science and religion.
For an example we could look at radiocarbon dating. The (very simplified) theory is that cosmic radiation causes the generation of radioactive carbon-14 upper atmosphere’s carbon dioxide molecules. This carbon-14 dioxide is then absorbed by plants and incorporated into sugars and more complex molecules by photosynthesis. The plants are eaten by animals and thus the carbon-14 is spread throughout the food chain. Once something dies it ceases to absorb C14 and because C14 decays, becoming C12 at a predictable rate (halflife = 5730±40 years) one can determine how long a living thing has been dead by seeing what percentage of its carbon is still C14. Radiocarbon dating can accurately tell the age of samples up to 60,000 years old. Other types of radiometric dating can tell the age of older samples or inorganic samples. However there are still some things which scientists don’t understand about carbon dating. Some very old samples like fossil fuels contain much higher levels of C14 than would be expected from samples of their age. Creation scientists use this evidence to claim that the whole carbon dating system is faulty, they ignore the fact that many fossil fuel samples have the expected amount of C14 for their age. Real scientists are not exactly sure how the ‘extra’ C14 got into the very old samples, they have a number of theories which they are investigating. So while the vast majority of evidence suggests that the earth is very old and that the current model for C14 dating is correct, there are some anomalies. Real scientists attempt to explain these anomalies within the existing theoretical model while creation scientists use these anomalies as an excuse to throw out the whole theoretical model.
It is also worth noting that many of the scientists who developed the original theories of which state that the earth is greater than 6,000 years old were Christians. If the scientific evidence had been in line with what a literal interpretation of the bible says tells us, this conflict would not exist. It was doubtless a struggle for some of these men to accept that what the bible said about the age of the earth and the origin of man was not the literal truth, if the evidence had not been so compelling, they would never have deviated from the bible’s account.
So on to what I believe about the bible and the origins of man and the universe. First, God, one of the aspects of Christianity which is often claimed as unique and which is often difficult to understand is the idea of a personal God. Why would a god who created everyone and everything, a god who created quasars and black holes care about insignificant me? So the first answer is why not, it’s not like god has limited time or resources, god is so vast (or infinite) in scope and intelligence that god has time to pay attention to everything, not just the ‘important’ stuff. The second answer is that perhaps there is a metaphor for how god is in how nature is. The universe is mind-blowingly big (and old), if you try to comprehend how big (and old) it is you can’t, there are all these metaphors for it but basically you can’t wrap your mind around it. The universe is made from mindblowingly small parts, we still haven’t reached the limits of how small they are (we keep building bigger and bigger particle accelerators and we are able to see smaller and smaller particles). So I think god is sort of like that too, yes infinite and unapproachable, but at the same time concerned with the tiny events of our lives and our souls. Also I don’t believe that time applies to god anymore than space does.
When that god created the universe, using today’s scientific limit we will call that moment the big bang, you could say that god was also creating earth, humanity, and you and me. Let’s back up a second for an aside on the science: currently (well, last I heard) scientists had traced the beginning of the universe back to the big bang. They have a good idea what the universe looked like less than a second after the big bang. Just to be sure we are on the same page, big bang theory = in the beginning all matter and energy was concentrated into a single point, the big bang is the moment when this point exploded eventually becoming the universe we know today. The big questions: where did all the matter and energy come from in the first place, and why did they suddenly expand to create the modern universe remain unanswered. Atheist scientists say it was a random phenomena, theist scientists often say it was created by god. I believe that at that moment of creation, when god decided what matter would be in the universe, what the laws of physics would be, he chose them so that people and you and I would eventually evolve on earth. Einstein says god doesn’t play dice, I say sure god does, but god knows how every roll will turn out, god created the dice after all.
If creation was really the big bang though, why does the bible contain such a different story? I can think of two consistent explanations. First, ancient humans would not have understood the big bang. Either god never told humanity how the universe was created and we put the creation account into the bible on our own to make the story more complete, or god told us the biblical creation story as a metaphor but we took it literally. Second, god does not teach science. When humans are thrown out of Eden and told that they must till the land to survive, god does not tell them how to do it, they are left to figure it out for themselves. This is in sharp contrast to other religious traditions where gods are often pictured explaining how to farm or how to make clay pots to early humans. Our god however, is pretty hands off when it comes to the things of the physical world. So even if we would have understood the big bang, I don’t think god would have told us. I have a (possibly heretical) belief that god loves science, loves that we humans are discovering more and more about how the universe works all on our own. I don’t believe that god would have wanted to take that experience away from us any more than a parent wants to explain everything to a child and never let it discover anything for itself.
How do I separate fact from fable in the bible? Here is how I approach it. If science clearly contradicts the biblical account, as with evolution and the origin of the universe, I believe the science. However I do not deny miracles. Things like the virgin birth and the parting of the sea of reeds could have been miraculous occurrences. Scientists have no way of proving that these things did not happen, and since they are presented as supernatural they are not obligated to follow the laws of science anyways. The one miracle I have trouble with is the global flood. If such an event had occurred I’m sure that there would be evidence of it, I’m not sure if there is or not. Either way I don’t stress too much about the supernatural events of the bible. If Jesus was placed in a virgin’s womb or if he was fathered in the ordinary way by a man, he is still the son of god, member of the trinity etc. How Jesus’ body came to be is irrelevant; it’s his soul that matters. As for your last question, of coarse we could be wrong about the big bang, it’s just the best theory we have right now. What I don’t think will change though, is that there will always be an ‘in the beginning’ which scientists cannot explain adequately without god.
Sorry that was so long. This is my first attempt at writing down what I believe about these matters, don’t judge me harshly if I’m clumsy at times.
Feel free to chime in, we’d love to hear from you.
Ender,
There are many Christians who believe in evolution and the big bang however we don’t yell as loudly as either the creation science folks or the atheists who say that evolution disproves god. The video you watched sounds like it came from a creation science guy. These people try to bend science to fit the bible, they can easily fool those who have little scientific background, I think that their approach damages both science and religion.
For an example we could look at radiocarbon dating. The (very simplified) theory is that cosmic radiation causes the generation of radioactive carbon-14 upper atmosphere’s carbon dioxide molecules. This carbon-14 dioxide is then absorbed by plants and incorporated into sugars and more complex molecules by photosynthesis. The plants are eaten by animals and thus the carbon-14 is spread throughout the food chain. Once something dies it ceases to absorb C14 and because C14 decays, becoming C12 at a predictable rate (halflife = 5730±40 years) one can determine how long a living thing has been dead by seeing what percentage of its carbon is still C14. Radiocarbon dating can accurately tell the age of samples up to 60,000 years old. Other types of radiometric dating can tell the age of older samples or inorganic samples. However there are still some things which scientists don’t understand about carbon dating. Some very old samples like fossil fuels contain much higher levels of C14 than would be expected from samples of their age. Creation scientists use this evidence to claim that the whole carbon dating system is faulty, they ignore the fact that many fossil fuel samples have the expected amount of C14 for their age. Real scientists are not exactly sure how the ‘extra’ C14 got into the very old samples, they have a number of theories which they are investigating. So while the vast majority of evidence suggests that the earth is very old and that the current model for C14 dating is correct, there are some anomalies. Real scientists attempt to explain these anomalies within the existing theoretical model while creation scientists use these anomalies as an excuse to throw out the whole theoretical model.
It is also worth noting that many of the scientists who developed the original theories of which state that the earth is greater than 6,000 years old were Christians. If the scientific evidence had been in line with what a literal interpretation of the bible says tells us, this conflict would not exist. It was doubtless a struggle for some of these men to accept that what the bible said about the age of the earth and the origin of man was not the literal truth, if the evidence had not been so compelling, they would never have deviated from the bible’s account.
So on to what I believe about the bible and the origins of man and the universe. First, God, one of the aspects of Christianity which is often claimed as unique and which is often difficult to understand is the idea of a personal God. Why would a god who created everyone and everything, a god who created quasars and black holes care about insignificant me? So the first answer is why not, it’s not like god has limited time or resources, god is so vast (or infinite) in scope and intelligence that god has time to pay attention to everything, not just the ‘important’ stuff. The second answer is that perhaps there is a metaphor for how god is in how nature is. The universe is mind-blowingly big (and old), if you try to comprehend how big (and old) it is you can’t, there are all these metaphors for it but basically you can’t wrap your mind around it. The universe is made from mindblowingly small parts, we still haven’t reached the limits of how small they are (we keep building bigger and bigger particle accelerators and we are able to see smaller and smaller particles). So I think god is sort of like that too, yes infinite and unapproachable, but at the same time concerned with the tiny events of our lives and our souls. Also I don’t believe that time applies to god anymore than space does.
When that god created the universe, using today’s scientific limit we will call that moment the big bang, you could say that god was also creating earth, humanity, and you and me. Let’s back up a second for an aside on the science: currently (well, last I heard) scientists had traced the beginning of the universe back to the big bang. They have a good idea what the universe looked like less than a second after the big bang. Just to be sure we are on the same page, big bang theory = in the beginning all matter and energy was concentrated into a single point, the big bang is the moment when this point exploded eventually becoming the universe we know today. The big questions: where did all the matter and energy come from in the first place, and why did they suddenly expand to create the modern universe remain unanswered. Atheist scientists say it was a random phenomena, theist scientists often say it was created by god. I believe that at that moment of creation, when god decided what matter would be in the universe, what the laws of physics would be, he chose them so that people and you and I would eventually evolve on earth. Einstein says god doesn’t play dice, I say sure god does, but god knows how every roll will turn out, god created the dice after all.
If creation was really the big bang though, why does the bible contain such a different story? I can think of two consistent explanations. First, ancient humans would not have understood the big bang. Either god never told humanity how the universe was created and we put the creation account into the bible on our own to make the story more complete, or god told us the biblical creation story as a metaphor but we took it literally. Second, god does not teach science. When humans are thrown out of Eden and told that they must till the land to survive, god does not tell them how to do it, they are left to figure it out for themselves. This is in sharp contrast to other religious traditions where gods are often pictured explaining how to farm or how to make clay pots to early humans. Our god however, is pretty hands off when it comes to the things of the physical world. So even if we would have understood the big bang, I don’t think god would have told us. I have a (possibly heretical) belief that god loves science, loves that we humans are discovering more and more about how the universe works all on our own. I don’t believe that god would have wanted to take that experience away from us any more than a parent wants to explain everything to a child and never let it discover anything for itself.
How do I separate fact from fable in the bible? Here is how I approach it. If science clearly contradicts the biblical account, as with evolution and the origin of the universe, I believe the science. However I do not deny miracles. Things like the virgin birth and the parting of the sea of reeds could have been miraculous occurrences. Scientists have no way of proving that these things did not happen, and since they are presented as supernatural they are not obligated to follow the laws of science anyways. The one miracle I have trouble with is the global flood. If such an event had occurred I’m sure that there would be evidence of it, I’m not sure if there is or not. Either way I don’t stress too much about the supernatural events of the bible. If Jesus was placed in a virgin’s womb or if he was fathered in the ordinary way by a man, he is still the son of god, member of the trinity etc. How Jesus’ body came to be is irrelevant; it’s his soul that matters. As for your last question, of coarse we could be wrong about the big bang, it’s just the best theory we have right now. What I don’t think will change though, is that there will always be an ‘in the beginning’ which scientists cannot explain adequately without god.
Sorry that was so long. This is my first attempt at writing down what I believe about these matters, don’t judge me harshly if I’m clumsy at times.
The victor belongs to the spoils.
-
Ender
- Posts: 36
- Joined: 06 Aug 2008, 16:59
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I, for one, do not judge you on any of your beliefs or theories. The reason I'm talking to you about all of these things is so I can learn more about what you believe, and hopefully share what i believe. That doesn't necessarily mean that what we believe is different, I just mean that what I believe or think or supposedly understand is not set in stone. My views of the world are constantly shifting, and by talking to everyone about these kinds of things, I can get a clearer picture of what I think. I like your beliefs, I think you've approached this idea of God and Religion, Science and Creationism, with an analytically open mind. Where I'm from, it's hard to find people like that. You've never gone totally for science, or totally for religion, rather you've taken everything you've heard and learned and studied and applied it to what you think happened. I'm still learning and trying to find out everything I can about these kinds of topics, so that I can figure out what I think. Because honestly, I really don't know. All i can do is figure out the best I can with what information i have on me at the time.
Carbon-dating is still very unclear to me. I understand the gist of what you're saying, but since I've never studied much in that area, I can't say i really understand it. It makes sense from what's been explained to me, but that's about it. Like you said, people with little scientific background can easily be fooled.
I've been exposed to the Big Bang Theory as well, although nothing deep or intellectual, rather the History 101 "Intro to the Origin's of the Universe" kind of lectures. I've honestly never really tried to tie in the Big Bang theory with the Bible, trying to figure out what might have happened. I've always had this view (which i understand now was most likely flawed) of there being two seperate factions; the creationists and the big bang theorists. Unless I'm mistaken, the Creationists take the Bible very seriously. When it says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Never mind that it could just mean something like "it rained for a very long time" or how long was a day back then, if our days and years are getting longer? The Creationists (and I know i'm being stereotypical here, but just as a faction name) take the Bible very seriously, whereas the opposite faction of Science, believes what they've learned through Science and science only. Big Bang Theory, carbon-dating, and gravity and whatnot. What it can see and feel and smell and solve through scientific reasoning. I've always assumed that these were the two OPPOSING factions. It never occured to me that there could be a religious scientist. I know I sound like a grew up under a rock somewhere(which isn't far from the truth) but this is honestly what i think i thought before. It was difficult because I have faith in God and the Bible, but I've also worked with science and believe it to have some credibility, which in my book before, was a negative. It's like i'm trying to go down two seperate roads at the same time. Never did I think that there was a road where those two ideas could be combined. And I'm kinda glad to have found it, really. It's nice knowing or thinking that I can believe the Big Bang Theory and not go to Hell. As I said, my views and opinions and beliefs are still being formed.
Carbon-dating is still very unclear to me. I understand the gist of what you're saying, but since I've never studied much in that area, I can't say i really understand it. It makes sense from what's been explained to me, but that's about it. Like you said, people with little scientific background can easily be fooled.
I've been exposed to the Big Bang Theory as well, although nothing deep or intellectual, rather the History 101 "Intro to the Origin's of the Universe" kind of lectures. I've honestly never really tried to tie in the Big Bang theory with the Bible, trying to figure out what might have happened. I've always had this view (which i understand now was most likely flawed) of there being two seperate factions; the creationists and the big bang theorists. Unless I'm mistaken, the Creationists take the Bible very seriously. When it says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Never mind that it could just mean something like "it rained for a very long time" or how long was a day back then, if our days and years are getting longer? The Creationists (and I know i'm being stereotypical here, but just as a faction name) take the Bible very seriously, whereas the opposite faction of Science, believes what they've learned through Science and science only. Big Bang Theory, carbon-dating, and gravity and whatnot. What it can see and feel and smell and solve through scientific reasoning. I've always assumed that these were the two OPPOSING factions. It never occured to me that there could be a religious scientist. I know I sound like a grew up under a rock somewhere(which isn't far from the truth) but this is honestly what i think i thought before. It was difficult because I have faith in God and the Bible, but I've also worked with science and believe it to have some credibility, which in my book before, was a negative. It's like i'm trying to go down two seperate roads at the same time. Never did I think that there was a road where those two ideas could be combined. And I'm kinda glad to have found it, really. It's nice knowing or thinking that I can believe the Big Bang Theory and not go to Hell. As I said, my views and opinions and beliefs are still being formed.
