To simplify a little less, Aquinas didn't interpret Genesis literally but he never disputed creation of the world by God. Creation is irreconcible with eternal universe.

@abge,,,,ius the sun and ENDLESS source of energy? If it is not...then is it not an open system. Eveidently, you failed to read and comprehend my entire post. Big surprise. That "classic mechanics" fails in a quantum environment means that "classic mechanics" is only a good **approximation** of reality. God....how simple a fucking concept is that!!!?!? If you can't get that Newtonian phsyics are wrong...that they approximate, and do NOT describe....it you can not grasp that VERY BASIC CONCEPT....then there is no point in continuing a discussion with you, becuase you live ina fantasy world where "about" is the same as "equals"...and thus you are a moron.

@abge -- again...not hiding in a veil of troll, as you, AGAIN....are too ignorant/arrogant/STUPID to comprehend a post before you lash out. Most of you are....You failed to respond to the most *basic* concept of my post, and instead focused on attacking me. How fucking lame are you. Oh...i know...you are a smarty-pants college boy and know *everything* about the universe....er....uh....sorry, pretty boy....you lose, as you fail on basic language comprehension....English 101 is beyond you. buh bye...

"Troll" You know....I find it *pathetic* that so many "smart people" on these threads so often resort to proclaiming someone a "troll" when they disagree with your arguments. MOST often, the name-callers have found themselves *stumped* by an argument, and instead of having a discussion, they simply choose to name call and thus divert from the actual argument. It is the primary strategy of the Democrat Party in the US...who went over 2+ years without passing a budget while they held the House, the Senate and the White House...and then blamed fiscal problems on others. If they can divert the blame through name calling, maybe nobody will see how false their own arguments (or lack of arguments) are. Soooo many in these forums are the same. Abge....for example...who called me out, instead of comprehending my argument and replying to it. How fucking LAME!

"So, it's fine when you make a pretty strong assertion (when one contestant guesses wrong every time since Aristotle) but when I point out that the greatest capacities of their time didn't say anything of this sort, I'm grossly simplifying. Well, I am simplifying but it's still enough to prove you wrong. I'm wondering why you even bothered to write something so easily debunkable when you know how it actually was in the past, i.e. that Aristotle was an undisputable authority but some of his thoughts didn't make the cut. Thoughts contradicting Genesis."

His thoughts concerning genesis certainly did make the cut, just not wholesale, for example, Aquinas had issues with the idea of creation out of nothing based on the writings of aquinas

@Krellin

Careful now, all that rage is bad for your heart.

and my original point was with your already simplistic Reliogious vs. science dichotomy. The idiot contestant (Religion) gets one right while the Brilliant Contestant (Science) had bad luck. Aquinas was a religious authority, if you want science devoid of religion almost every scientist believed in Aristotle (including through the renaissance and enlightenment), and after aristotle in an infinite universe as it was.

Your completely separate (And False) characterization of Medieval Science being completely under the monopoly of the church is wrong. Even in the narrow focus of European "science", European scholars were reading the work of classical, Islamic, and Jewish scholars on physical science throughout the medieval period. Some made no effort to reconcile the two, the ones that did are remembered as great philosophers and are discussed today

I should say monopoly of the bible over European science, the church did kind of have a monopoly

Last remarks before going to bed:

Santa, there's a difference between having issues and believing in something. In the end, Aquinas believed in Creation and despite his huge influence on Thomas, Aristotle didn't make the cut. I dare to say that there were more intellectual heavy-weights in the middle ages in favour of evolution than in favour of eternal universe.

Krellin, you were called out as troll because of your complete disregard of the holes in your knowledge of physics others pointed out to you combined with aggressive denigration of others. Let's make it clear once and for all and let me simplify. Any particular example of evolution leading to order instead of chaos lacks understanding of the grand scheme of things. Living beings need energy for their functioning, they eat food (solid orderly material) and humans burn coal and stuff. Then they exhaust this used energy in the form of heat -> increase in entropy, i.e. amount of energy unusable for work. What's more, the universe is constantly expanding and the matter will once decay in the future. This means that universe will end as a huge dead space (unless it isn't expanding fast enough, then it will crash), each part of it being physically identical to another. No matter how complicated superstructure may evolve in the universe, this is how it will end, no violation of second law at all.

I am always befuddled by the role of religion in the US. We have only one publicly known Young Earth creationist in the Czech Republic, Petr Hájek, (he also believes that 9/11 was an insider job and that Osama was not real), he received a scientific anti-award for disseminating bullshit among general population and is generally considered to be a tool through which our president channels some ideas that would hurt his popularity if he said them personally. Clergymen, even as important as cardinals and archbishops, tend to accentuate social aspects of Christianity (love, solidarity, family values) in interviews with medias, avoiding questions on dogmas (since true answers wouldn't be met with joy from the population) and picture Bible as an alegory that is supposed to teach us to love God and others, which means that the Church has to modify the message according to progress in modern society. Religion (not to mention something like Bible reading) is no longer a obligatory (or voluntary) subject even on Christian schools, core tenets of world religions are taught in history and literature classes. What distinguishes Christian schools from others is mainly a higher probability of offering courses of Latin. I met a self-awowed Satanist attending one Catholic high school who was upset that wearing inverted crosses on the premises didn't create much shock among the staff. I don't think she would face the same treatment somewhere in Tennessee :)

@abge...once again...you are *completely* incapable of addressing an argument. PATHETIC. I'm not in a rage, my ignorant/stupid friend. I just weep for humanity if people like you -- with your inability to think beyond whatever your professor told you to think -- are the future. I'm sure you have a mind...I'm just deeply saddened that none of your profs ever taught you how to use it to do anything other than recite their agenda.

"Santa, there's a difference between having issues and believing in something. In the end, Aquinas believed in Creation and despite his huge influence on Thomas, Aristotle didn't make the cut. I dare to say that there were more intellectual heavy-weights in the middle ages in favour of evolution than in favour of eternal universe."

Yet he gave Aristotles beliefs significant weight and worked them into his own work attempting to reconcile eternal and created universes

"I dare to say that there were more intellectual heavy-weights in the middle ages in favour of evolution than in favour of eternal universe."

You are completely wrong, sorry, you can work off of your stereotypes of the medieval world all you want, instead why dont you pick up a book and read about Aristotelian science in the middle ages. Its amazing that people on this thread argue about stuff they don't know a thing about.

"There is nothing about "epochs" which is "convenient" it is the translation of the word"

I have yet to see a single Hebrew dictionary with that translation of the word "yowm". Furthermore, it's been said that if yowm is modified by a number, it can only mean a 24-hour day, not anything longer. Also, the passages in genesis that mention that word, translated as "day", also have the phrase "evening and morning" right before it.

"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." Genesis 1:5

"The Bible NEVER says the earth is 6000 years, scholars attempting to age the earth through the bible have calculated 6000 years. The problem with you is you cant seperate the bible from the fundamentalist bull shit you hear from the wingnuts. Meanwhile you also miss out that the bible is indeed to be read metaphorically rather than literally as Jewish and Christian scholars have known for centuries."

Yes it does. By adding up the all the years mentioned it absolutely does. Whether you interpret this "metaphorically" is another matter. But to deny the mentioning of years between events is just ridiculous. Of course, Jewish and Christian scholars selectively claim parts of the Bible are 'metaphor'. There's not a single Christian scholar who thinks the resurrection is a "metaphor". They claim it actually happened. There is a lot of effort spent by Christian scholars trying to demonstrate the historicity of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. Many claim that it's the most historically accurate recorded document of that era. As a historian you should know this to be true. But anytime anybody points out problems with the Bible the defense is "oh it's a metaphor". So the kingdom of Israel never existed, right? There was no Exodus? The recording of events which happened to the Jewish nation is not accurate?

"But then again I get kick out of arguing with people who have no clue what they are talking about, much like our discussion of hell in Judaism which you were skeptical of for no reason (considering you have NO background knowledge) and here as you continue to make patently false claims based on falsehoods you learned by osmosis."

Ok, so you're openly trolling. And you apparently know what I have background knowledge about. You still insist I was arguing about hell, when I was talking about purgatory. I wasn't making "patently false claims". The book of Maccabees was in the OT for over 1,000 years. That's a fact. You just are bent on being nasty in every argument, for whatever reason.

I have yet to see a single Hebrew dictionary with that translation of the word "yowm". Furthermore, it's been said that if yowm is modified by a number, it can only mean a 24-hour day, not anything longer. Also, the passages in genesis that mention that word, translated as "day", also have the phrase "evening and morning" right before it.

Oh I see you read hebrew now and are an expert, what an incredible development!

Wait arn't all Hebrew dictionaries based on modern hebrew, in which yom is used to mean Day? Oh shit never mind, I dont want to disagree with Rabbi Putin!!!!

"Yes it does. By adding up the all the years mentioned it absolutely does"

No metaphor about it, there are no years to add up, early scholars patched up holes in lineages while basing their conclusions on the fact that the world was created in 7 days.

"Ok, so you're openly trolling. And you apparently know what I have background knowledge about. You still insist I was arguing about hell, when I was talking about purgatory. I wasn't making "patently false claims". The book of Maccabees was in the OT for over 1,000 years. That's a fact. You just are bent on being nasty in every argument, for whatever reason."

Yeah nasty everytime, I was very patient last time as i have been this time, you put words in my mouth as i explained last time, I was talking about the Old Testament in the Jewish context, which NEVER included Maccabees, nor does adding the word "Purgatory" matter, there is no mention of "Purgatory" in the texts. Nor does a prayer for the dead necessarily include a belief in Purgatory. You obviously have no experience with the Old Testiment, yet you still make authoritative statements about things you have no clue about, how am I nasty. If I do that, say about Marx (which I dont), you say the same exact thing

and yes I am openly trolling

@Krellin

If you want respect, you must earn it. I'm honestly not sure why you were so taken aback by my first response to you. If you'd like to (calmly) explain what your problem is, I'd be happy to continue this conversation. If you'd like to continue to kick and scream like a small child, that is also fine, but don't expect anyone to care when you complain about the quality of discussion on this site.

Wow, this thread's gone wild since I took off.
I'm going to skip over all the intermediates (sorry!) and make one quick point, and then dash off again, for most of the evening.
Regarding Putin's response to my query:

"The laws of physics literally come from nothing. The laws of physics are not really laws. The universe and the laws of physics arose from a highly unstable and symmetric void. The universe is nothing more than rearranged nothing.

Anyway this question has been answered by physics. It is myth concocted by theologians and philosophers that it can't in principle be answered."

First, I think you should probably settle on one of these answers. Either this is a non-question and the laws of physics don't exist, or physics has explained where they came from.

But here, look. I am not talking about our abstraction of the laws, once again. If I throw a ball up in the air, I can predict when it will come down again. I'm not talking about the equations I use to do that (even though your remarks on math and logic are also absurd). I'm talking about why the ball actually does what I say / think it will. The cause of that regularity that I am harnessing / describing in mathematical language / whatever.

Stenger's attempt utterly fails to answer this question. Yes, Noether's theorem gives a vastly elegant, beautiful, and powerful way of looking at physics: physical laws are equivalent to symmetries. But it says nothing, and neither can science, about why the universe respects the symmetries we think up (or any symmetries). Why are there symmetries to either define or discover? Many (in some important sense, most) mathematical spaces have no symmetries whatsoever. Why does the universe? For example, energy conservation corresponds to time translation symmetry. But why should there be time translation symmetry? This (indeed, by Noether's theorem) is just another way of asking the same question, and it certainly provides no answer.

Now you'll probably say this is a non-question, and that it just is, or something. Fine. By doing so you jump headlong into the most brutal possible forms of Hume's induction skepticism, but fine. I just wanted to address the completely wrong claim that Stenger (or Noether, or some combination of the two) had somehow explained the laws of physics. They have merely restated them -- incredibly beautifully, as I say -- as equivalent to some intuitively appealing and experimentally verified symmetries.

Oh, believe me, Abgemacht... I tried once to actually connect to Krellin as an adult. It degenerated very quickly into him slinging middle-school insults.

Good on you for trying, it makes you a better person than him, but I'm betting you're going to be disappointed. But hope springs eternal. :)

My issue with religion doesn't have anything to do with a particular superstition... its that by definition, a religion encourages acceptance on faith, rather than investigation and critical thinking.

I'm not one to baldly state that our current understanding of the universe is perfect (its far from it). There are issues with reconciling Newtonian and Einsteinian(is that even a term?). The difference between science and dogma is this: Science is actively engaged in the pursuit of reconciling and figuring out those problems, not just slapping a "God did it" sticker on it.

Slapping that "God did it" sticker on there is just the modern equivalent of saying "Zeus makes thunder"... and its equally intellectually bankrupt.

@abge - I don't need respect from you. Honestly, if you gave me respect, I would have to question myself. You...and many others....have no ability to see viewpoints beyond your own. Oh....I understand you. I was you once...in college, or a recent grad...thought I knew it all. I live in reality now. You....not so much. No...I don't need your respect. After all, you **still** have not even attempted to address my FIRST post in this forum discussion. You insulted me without ever addressing what I said. Therefore, you are an idiot, and not someone whom I would ever seek respect from. When you actually try to address my initial post without being a bitch, without just trying to insult, then I might care. For now....your little more than the dog shit I try to scrap from my shoe...

HAHA Haaaa! Jack Klein the Liberal Lawyer!!! That' funny, dude! You, too, can't see past your wicked pointy nose to see anybody else's point of view. even here, you don't try to address a real post, but simply sling insults. Fucking pathetic. I have no problem with liberals that can actually make a logical point, and address counter-arguments. But you....the only thing you EVER do is call people stupid that disagree with you without ever intellectually, honestly trying to address their points. Typical asshole liberalism. Sad, sad little Jack. Never had a friend...still doesn't.

I need to be a Hebrew expert to look up a word in an OT Hebrew dictionary now? There are no OT Hebrew dictionaries?

http://ia700108.us.archive.org/18/items/acompletehebrewe00feyeuoft/acompletehebrewe00feyeuoft.pdf

" I was talking about the Old Testament in the Jewish context, which NEVER included Maccabees, nor does adding the word "Purgatory" matter, there is no mention of "Purgatory" in the texts."

You didn't make that obvious from your original statement. But you felt free to go ahead and claim I'm making "patently false statements".

"42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.

43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;

44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.

45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.

46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. "

This strongly implies purgatory. Praying for the dead so that they are free from sin. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory (which I am familiar with, so screw you) does not say that purgatory is a physical place.

Apparently you, even though you're an atheist, are an expert. But I'm just spouting off nonsense and "have no background" because you say so.

@Krellin

Would you like me to call the WAAAAAbulance for you?

"You didn't make that obvious from your original statement. But you felt free to go ahead and claim I'm making "patently false statements"."

Im sorry, was i not talking completely about Jewish topics from the very beginning? All of a sudden Im going to be an exprt on christian theological canon

"This strongly implies purgatory. Praying for the dead so that they are free from sin. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory (which I am familiar with, so screw you) does not say that purgatory is a physical place.

Apparently you, even though you're an atheist, are an expert. But I'm just spouting off nonsense and "have no background" because you say so."

Again NOT in the Jewish old testament. But, if we are looking at it as a historical text, it nowhere implies purgatory. God has the power to resurrect the dead, god has the power to do anything. Very different from a doctrine of heaven, hell and purgatory, and looks a hell of alot like the jewish belief that the dead will be risen at the time the messiah arrives.

I need to be a Hebrew expert to look up a word in an OT Hebrew dictionary now? There are no OT Hebrew dictionaries?

I have talked to several Orthodox rabbis, who described yom and yamim as translatable to eras or epochs, these are orthodox rabbis who believe that the earth is 5771 years old. Orthodox Rabbis with Decades minus 15 minutes more experience in hebrew, torah study, and religion than you do.

@ Draugnar - You asked about a replicable experiment which demonstrates principles of evolution, I suggest you look at John Endler's work with guppies. It does exactly that, the experiments are completely replicable, and are also fascinating.

@ Krellin, - Abgemacht et al. have addressed your questions. Pardon me for saying this, I really don't mean to offend you, but your responses lead me to one inescapable conclusion; that you just don't understand the scientific principles well enough to see how the responses you've gotten do in fact answer your questions. If I were debating a topic about which I was so woefully ignorant, I'd be frustrated too.

Deism promotes neither creationism nor intelligent design. Deists promote the big bang, evolution, and science in general. The only thing deists believe is the likelihood of a supreme being that originated everything.

meh. Against my better judgment, I've become interested in this thread. Tell me if I understand this correctly.

ID, is intelligent design, or, as I know it to be, the trickster God hypothesis.

Yes? No?

last time maple got interested in religion it was caught on tape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlKpSYv9-oI&NR=1

Had a read through the thread, and didn't see anyone question Abge on this from page 1: Why is Evolution a theory and ID deemed not to be? Sure there is evidence to support evolution, but there isn't evidence to refute ID.
In science every theory should be considered a possibility until it has been disproved.

I also find it hard to understand why you're all so sure the 7000 year claim is false? Personally I don't believe it, but think of it this way: If you have a God capable of creating an entire universe, why wouldn't he be able to do so in such a way that it looked older than it is?

To date...Christianity and their system of explanation as to how the earth came to be is the only religion that is being attacked by science and scientists everywhere. Frankly, if you're going to "debunk" creationism and ID in the classroom, shouldn't you legally be forced to discuss every religions system of belief in how the world came to be to debunk them as well? It only seems fair, otherwise you have a system set up of religious persecution in the classroom of only one group....so in essence, I actually agree with a lot of you (which is shocking to me to a degree), and creationism/ID shouldn't be taught in schools as a science class section.

Maple: ID isn't a trickster God. It's the idea that God used something such as the Big Bang or evolution in His design. It's not the trickster one, that's the 7,000 year earth made to look older one.