h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hey aheyas
sadfjks;aldfkjlasdkjasdflkj as dlkfjas;ldkjfasd
fsdfldklshajsdal'kfjasd
fjsakldf'jasdf'lkjsadfaslkjfs
'dfj
sdafjps;dfkl
jsad;fklj
sad
f;kjsdal'fjsdal'fkjas'dlkfjsdkl'fjk'asldfj
asdfj'sdalkfjsd'alkfjsda
fsadrf
sadf
asdf
sda
fsda
fsda
fasd
fsd
afdas
fsd
afsa
dfsd
fsd
fsd
fasd
fasd
fs
adfs
afas
df
asdf
sadf
sadf
asd
fsad
f
saf
a
sdf
sadf
sadf
as
dfas
df
sdarf
sadfsadfasd
fsda
fsdafsdafsda;flkaweto; hiwnbpoiwequ vnwqeu nopwin roiaweuropi423uy89q7y5poi asodkjas
dfsdaklfjawfi43wqup v3q4iu v8q34 vq38904u7 t9pa8urtq8 389q4uy t98we4 3489qwy 98pweauy pt9aewu8 aewr8t e489y 8934 9384qa t9384qaty 3p98wa4y t9paw348 yt893a4w uta3y8 hey 3a894 a89we ta489we aew8 josh wao a[48w ur448 u48ryh4awery8 sup 34890 ua3tu a4 ta3waertgae'ra'itgujaerio'uj who aw;iaw34u r0awis ljkas ;ioawu or a09 aw'owai day
4wt sad
fads
fsad
fsadf
asf
as
fasd
fsad
rf'rg
'e
ahe
aeh
teh
et
het
he
et
h
eth
eth
eth
h



















sdfg
dg
fa
g

agda
g
dag
dg
a
g
dasfg
ads
gasd
fg
dfg
dhf
gdh
dh
dgh






















dfh
fdh
dfh
dhfdfh
dhfdhdghfdhfdhfghfg
hdgh
fg
hh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh












































































































hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
sup!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have either finally gone mad, on some very powerful drugs (in which case can I have some please) or utterly drunk.

What the hell happened?

Ste

An incredibly stupid person has discovered my password, it seems. I shall have to chat with him...

You say that they conflicted with the stuff you were taught in church. Have you ever thought that that stuff is not to be taken in the literal, scientificly-precise sense.

The bible was written before scientific thought came about, as I'm sure you already know. Hence, the authors of the bible had no intention to give a literal, scientific account because that way of thinking wasn't around then. That only happened with Newton and Co. in the 1600's.

The creation story makes sense and has a valuable message. If you take it literally though, it loses all of it's meaning.

My Father-in-Law, a priest and an Augustinian quoted his very favourite Saint (Augustine if you haven't guessed) on another conversation here: "the book of Genesis teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Which I think is very cool.

What do you think?

Evolution has been presumed to happen for well over a century, and as theories go, it is a pretty damn rigorous one. The discussion has moved way past that point of whether it happened or not, in the scientific realm at least. It is now about how, why, where, when and what.



Ste

I take the Bible very literally. True, scientific thought in humans was rare in early history (though I would point out Pythagoras, Josephus, and Aristotle as evidence that scientific thought is not THAT new). But God has always been capable of scientific thought, and since He divinely inspired the writers of the Bible, taking the Bible as literal scientific evidence is a valid option.

And who can forget Plato, Socrates, and the other Greek scholars, who not only thought about science, but other deep matters as well. (Ok, Josh, I just wanted to jump in on the conversation).

Josh, Mighty Keeper of the Towels

As you may have guessed by now, I am a scientist. A biologist in fact. Not a PhD or anything (yet, I'm still young), but still. What I want to know is how do *you* define "science"? I take it to mean the specific process in which information is gathered about or surroundings. I.e., hypothesise, experiment/observe, theorise. I don't see how that can be applied to genesis even if it were taken literally.

Ancient Greeks, although they were very good at cognitive, intellectual thought, did not give us science. And Plato is just wrong. I like Aristotle though, but he was no scientist. They were clever, don't get me wrong, but science we see today started in the 17th century.

A question or two: You take the bible, especially genesis, literally? So you think the universe was created in 6 days and all that because the Book says so. Do you also think that Adam and Eve *literally* ate from a tree of knowledge of good and evil? That there was this tree, and it actually contained this knowledge and when they bit into the forbidden fruit they literally unleashed this knowledge unto man? Taken literally it makes no sense whatsoever. But if you take it as a story it tells valuable lessons on morality and sheds light on man's desire to control others, to take life, to basically "play god". "To know good and evil", to have experience of it, to understand it totally. It's a warning, a moral lesson.

Oh yeah, and in Hebrew "Adamah" (Adam in English) means "Earthling", or "From the Earth". And strangely enough evolution strongly suggests that life came from non-living stuff. The bible teaches us that Man is a product of the Earth (with divine qualities, the breath of God and all that). Cool eh?

The way information was passed around back then was via story-telling, not scientific discovery and dissemination in journals. And it should be seen as a series of stories.

Anyway, isn't there two accounts of genesis? How can you take both literally at the same time? That is impossible surely? Both couln't have happened at once in different ways. Literally.

I'm not trying to convert you here or anything, I realise you're way past that point , I'm just interested in what you think. I haven't met many people with your point of view. And I like to challenge people's beliefs, because I like to have mine challenged every once in a while. It's an altruistic thing (dammit, I don't believe in altruism), or something.

This post is now too long. See ya

Ste

Hmm. I've got a lot to respond to. First, as far as science, I think anything using unbiased logical deduction to discover more about the way the world works. Isn't that similar to your definition? You say the ancient Greeks gave us cognitive, intellectual thought, but not science. What's the difference?

Six day creation? Yes, I believe in a six literal day creation. The tree? Sure, I believe that. The rest of Genesis is a brief history of the Earth after creation and deserves some attention. It's a historical document, not a collection of fables. The Bible mades a clear distinction between fiction (i.e. parables of Jesus) and fact (i.e. the history of the Isrealites). Every "moral lesson" in the Bible begins with a disclaimer telling the reader that this is just a story. Look for yourself.

Interesting point about Adam, but your logic is flawed. Adam was named before the Hebrew language was formed...unless of course Hebrew was the first language, but where the scriptures are silent, I would be wise to be silent, so I'm not going to assume that.

Genesis starts out, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Then it proceeds to tell how he went about this. An evolutionary biologist tried to separate verse one from the rest of Genesis and claim that evolution happened in between here. That's where the two account myth comes from. It has no factual basis because God does not create plants until verse twenty-something and animals a day later.

Your father-in-law is a Catholic minister, you say? Does he feel the same way about these things, as you do?

Welcome to the conversation, Josh.

I hope people don't get us confused.

No, science is a lot more specific than that. I think that it is only slightly similar to my definition, it's a lot more general. Science is a quite specific way of doing things, and thinking about things. Hence it is a type of philosophy. It isn't simply logic, reason or deduction (although it does employ them).

So you think that the tree story is literal? Then what on Earth does it mean? It makes no sense. I can't see any reason to view the bible as an historical document, can you tell me yours?

So, how old do *you* think the Earth is, out of interest...

On Adam: The Old Testament is a Jewish Text, hence was written at some point in Hebrew. The point I was making is that somewhere in the translation the meanings were mixed up, from "Earthling" (not necessarily one man, but maybe "mankind") to a person named "Adam".

On the evolutionary biologist front: I wouldn't take anything too seriously from him. He is just trying to reconcile his faith and his logic. And failing by the looks of it. Shouls be an atheist like me, it's much easier.

My Father-in-Law is an Episcopal minister. He has devoted a large amount of his life studying the scriptures. He feels that fundamentalists who take the bible literally not only misconstrue science, but the bible too. He gets quite aggravated about it actually, which is quite funny to see.

Ste

Before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, the world was perfect. By eating it, they brought sin into the world. If you take the creation story as symbolic, you have trouble explaining just why the world is so evil.

have to go...

more later...

I disagree. The Tree is a symbol of "the knowledge of good and evil".

Knowledge in the Hebrew sense means more than to simply understand. It means to fully comprehend, to have experienced many aspects. In Hebrew, "to know a woman" means you know her emotionally, sexually, physically, intellectually. There is even a common phrase in use today that if you know a woman "in the biblical sense", you've had sex with her.

To "know" good and evil in the context that the authors of the bible wrote it in, therefore, means a lot more. When Adam (i.e., Adamah = mankind) ate of the fruit, he wasn't picking an apple, he was tempted to do evil and this is symbolised by the fruit. Man's temptation to experience evil, to dominate, to control, to murder, to rape, to wage war is made clear in this story. As I said before, it is a warning.

Surely you can see how this makes more sense than a person picked a fruit off a tree which let evil into the world. Which, let's face it, makes little sense in the real world.

What do you think about what I've written about science?



All the best,

Ste

The fact that Adam ate the fruit was no big deal. The problem was, God specifically told him not to.

As for the age of the Earth, I don't know, but I'd say less that 100,000 years.

I disagree that the story of the tree was just a parable. If God wanted to illustrate how evil man was with an anecdote, I think he would have called it an anecdote. Taking the Bible literally is the same as taking a report from the U.S. census literally. It has none of the characteristics of mythology, such as glorification of the writer, heroic human deeds, or mysticism (quite the opposite, in fact). The Bible is a historical document, not stories passed from one generation to the other.

I presume you think Carbon dating is a load of rubbish then?

Let's say for a moment that God *did* mean it as a story, then why would he say it was so? If he is being non-literal, then there's no reason for him to put a big label at the start of the story stating that it is supposed to be taken as a story, not literally. I think there are enough clues to tell one that it is indeed a parable; evil trees and talking snakes don't happen literally. That's just common sense.

If the bible is indeed an historical document, then what is the point of it? And why would an all powerful diety feel the need to write it?

Anyway, back to science.

Can I ask if you agree that the philosophy of science is what I have described it as (i.e., hypothesise in the light of current knowledge, test, theorise and add to current knowledge)? If not why?

I'm enjoying myself here, aren't you? It's far more civil when you don't have about 20 people shouting at you at once, as in the Creationism vs Evolution thread.

Ste

Amen to that last point!

Carbon dating confuses me. The process itself is, what, 175 years old? Something like that? How can we date things millions of years old with data from 200 years. My understanding is that it has something to do with proportion, but given the extreme conditions which fossils must put up with, such as the ice age, worldwide flood and other factors, I think our dating data is insufficient.

If you don't believe that the apple story is literal, how do you account for evil? The world itself is certainly not evil, just humans. If humans did not become evil because of disobeying God, how then?

The Bible was written as a liason between God and man. Stories and word of mouth pass away, but writing lasts.

And yes, God would put a big label on a symbolic, nonliteral story. We know this because he does. Every parable in the Bible begins with the annunciation of the fact that it IS a parable. Read it for yourself.

I agree with your definition of science, much better than mine. But I do disagree with the fact that this process is so new. The use of trial and error, hypothesizing, and testing to gain understanding are basic to human thought. Even children do this to learn, though they may not know they are using the scientific method.

Um, the constancy radioactive decay rates? It's not as if we've had this bit of C14 in a lab for how many years and we're measuring how much it decays over time. We know the *rate* at which it decays and that's enough to extrapolate. Simple.

What do you think about plate tectonics?

I couldn't help reading the other "fancy a debate" thread, but I didn't want to butt in. Jesus teaches to "love thy neighbour" and to forgive. And the bible says "Thou Shall Not Kill" (I don't think you could make any symbols out of that). Why aren't you taking those literally when it comes to the death penalty? I can understand your stance on abortion and embryology (even though stem cell research has the potential to cure millions and save many lives; "I am quite certain that absolutely no viable research will come from embryology", why???).

Anyway, looking forward to your reply...

Ste

Ah you replied, wait there....

(I'm at work you see, can't do this for long)

Ever heard of original sin? Man is always tempted to do bad from square one (apparently, I'm not a Christian, but just giving another viewpoint). Me?, I think that evil is purely an artificial construct of humans and as such cannot be attributed to any natural processes.

“The Bible was written as a liason between God and man. Stories and word of mouth pass away, but writing lasts.”
So, what’s the point of priests then? Writing does get mixed up between translations though doesn’t it? How does one you’re believing in the right things if someone mistranslated a Greek or Hebrew word a hundred or so years ago?

The first real work that we would now identify as "science" (and one of the seminal works of mankind, IMHO) was Isaac Newton's Principia, written in 1687. Squirrels can use trial and error, that's nothing too special. Reason and logic are ways of human thought, *this* is what children learn, not scientific thought.

What makes science stand out is the way it perpetuates itself. You use the current knowledge to hypothesise and test. The results and inferences from those results add to the current knowledge, but only after the data has been peer reviewed extensively by the scientific community. And the cycle begins again.

What makes Creationism not scientific is that it shows very little of what we consider “science”. It ignores the scientific consensus and cherry-picks the background knowledge, choosing only stuff that happens to support its hypothesis. Science tries to be as objective as possible at all stages. Creationism falls down at the first hurdle. Creationism does not experiment; its observations either come from the bible itself (i.e., tautological arguments) or it uses twisted logic to see the world through the filter of the bible, as in the anthropic principle (Josh, read Douglas Adams’ quote on the puddle of water thinking that, seeing as it’s the perfect shape to fit the hole it finds itself in, it must have been designed).

Creationism is not peer reviewed, it is just propaganda distributed from one source: the (frankly bizarre) Institute of Creation Research. It is unchanging and has been left behind in the 18th century from where it sprang up as a backlash against Darwinism.

Theorising based upon such fundamental errors is hopeless and will not elucidate any valuable or meaningful ideas.

Sorry this has got so long. This isn’t a rant by the way, I just got on a flow. I hope you understand…

All the best,

Ste