Because what's in the bible matters to science

[Toren]

Octopus and squid are not living!

http://groups.google.fi/group/talk.origins/msg/7c87d35f9dade985?&hl=en

 

[cletusthebold]

No, It doesn't

The Bible is full of contradictions and questionable precepts. To humor its' supporters even with tounge in cheek questions and debate lends it a credibility it does not merit. The Bible is mythology, not science, and there is no room for compromise in that. To attempt to reconcile the two is to take away the credibility and impartiality of the Scientific Process.

 

[Brock Fluharty]

Toren,

It did say that "octopus and squid could be considered non-living". Not that they were dead. I agree with cletusthebold. God said that he created everything in 7 days (if I remember correctly). Do you also not believe in dinosaurs then? Animals evolved into what they are now. The bible is myth, and it depends on what you believe. I do not think that it means that octopus and squid literally do not have a pulse, a heartbeat, or any life in their body. It is probably in some way shape or form, symbolic. Just saying what I believe. If you want to believe that octopus and squid are dead, far be it from me to stop you.

Brock Fluharty

 

[erich orser]

Uh oh, Toren, methinks certain folk here missed out on your sardonic sense of humor!

Hey, I know we're talking standard-order cephalopods here, but what of the deity that can be both dead and dreaming at the same time? Does it count as living or dead? Of course, there's an entire forum devoted to that guy...

 

[Tintenfisch]

what of the deity that can be both dead anddreaming at the same time? ...

Well-said, Erich. The only logical answer to all that other stuff.

 

[Steve O'Shea]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the 'bible' is myth, and don't believe we should be having this conversation online.

 

[bobwonderbuns]

Amen Dr. Steve, Amen!!!

 

[Toren]

Sorry, didn't mean to rile anyone. Just thought it was interesting!

 

[bigGdelta]

So now the sea is filled with hordes of zombie cephs. remember you've got to take out the brain.

 

[sorseress]

It might be ok to have the conversation online, but it should be on the supporters' forum if it is.

 

[DHyslop]

...And even then religious debates tend to go on in circles since even the most persuasive argument isn't enough to sway a person's model of the world. I know a lot of other forums have been through this up and down and have at long last chosen to delete religious or political threads. Being new to the supporters' forum I'm unaware if TONMO has been through this

Dan

 

[monty]

for what it's worth, I don't see this as any more or less offensive and off-topic than Well...it had to be on the web... and what is this?? Although some people have gotten wound up about both these threads, I think they're both examples of thought-provoking discussion, rather than name-calling and fisticuffs, and I would be disappointed if they were disallowed. I think this thread has not crossed out of of the realm of civility, but I think cletusthebold's post is close to the line, more in terms of how it's expressed than what it says... by my reading, it comes across as "this is my opinion, and if you disagree with it, you're out of line" rather than just "this is my opinion." (I suppose anyone "the bold" is inclined to come across that way on occasion, though; no hard feelings.)

It's kind of an "elephant in the living room" that there are a lot of strong opinions around here about mixing science and religion, and it is always a problem when that discussion degrades into bad feelings. I found the link Toren posted to start this thread interesting, and I'm glad I got the chance to read it, so my personal preference is that we can continue to have these discussions but make sure to keep it civil. Much of the natural history, fossils, evolution, and molecular biology discussions are, in fact, at odds with some people's religious beliefs... I think it's naive to think we can continue to discuss biology in any realistic way while tiptoeing around to avoid offending anyone.

 

[Clem]

Much of the natural history, fossils, evolution, and molecular biology discussions are, in fact, at odds with some people's religious beliefs... I think it's naive to think we can continue to discuss biology in any realistic way while tiptoeing around to avoid offending anyone.

Monty,

Thanks for writing that. If anything, I think we at TONMO tend to bend over backwards to accomodate religious beliefs. If we as a community are going to support those who argue that the Bible is truth, then we must also support those who who argue that it is myth. Fair's fair.

Right?

Clem

 

[William Tyson]

I would have to agree with monty on this.

And clem has a valid point. I personaly am fairly religious, and do believe what is in the bible; however i do not take it literaly, and instead look at it in a symbolic fasion. With the statement that "god created the world in 7 days" i believe that the "seven days" may have actualy been much longer . But if you look at the history of our planet, you will se that it does progress along with each of the seven days.
As with the refrence that cephs are not living, to someone over 2000 years ago who thought that the world was flat, an alien animal like a ceph would seem almost dead to them(no visable heartbeat, cold temp. ect)

 

[sorseress]

I just finished re-reading the first thread. Hooboy, that was fun. Come to think of it, this discussion does belong, but we just have to keep it respectful.