[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Ok, so according to the Avon Lady the bible and Torah is used to explain what science found out, to justify the old testament is nevertheless right, and literally. You can certainly claim that even the bible has been written by man, but they will tell you it was dictated by god.
But this is the Judaism's way to explain (is it really?), probably not the creationist.

The Torah's goal is not to be a science book. The purpose of the writers of the articles I linked to is to show how the Torah's minimal and abscure discussion on creation does or does not contradict this or that theory.

By the way, get used to the word "theory."

I just saw a film on that very theme, and the creationists were mentioned in claiming god created man and all animals at a time, including nowadays extinct species (as a paleontologist and geologist i have some doubts).

That's very theoretical. Personally, I don't buy it. The articles I linked to don't either.

All "evidence" we find is put up as a test by god whether you believe in him or not - despite research and science. There are certainly different opinions among the creationist factions. In the film there were proud country singers telling the crowd why Darwin and evolution is wrong and intelligent "instant-design" from a higher will is right (i must say i doubt intelligent design when i look at most of my neighbours, even if i look at me - but then it is not so far developed either lol).

You underestimate mankind but justifiably so.

"For the record, over a third of the US population believes that the Earth is "only" this old." (comment: some 6000 years)

What if G-d created several worlds on this planet before the current one we live in and the prehistoric artifacts being found are the residue from those prior worlds? That would be found in the Zohar, the main source of Jewish Kabbalah teachings, coded over 2000 years ago and Madonna's favorite subject (please ignore the latter - talk about lack of intelligent design!).

I once saw a film from the 50ies, i guess Spencer Tracy was a lawyer that had to defend a teacher talking about evolution to his scholars. The poor teacher had to face serious punishment in case of a condemnation. Please tell me that's not true today (?).

That would have been "Inherit the Wind."

Today it's pretty much the opposite, as has been pointed out, I think, in the first linked article I mentioned.

Is that better?

I knew that the pilgrims left England because of religious (puritan) beliefs, but is this view really widespread in the US today?? I mean the USA is Nr. 1 in Science and technology (generally spoken), you are extracting oil that began to form up in the Jurassic times - you use all kinds of stuff to determine age and evolution for developing all kinds of technology and weapons ... i'm speechless. One third, really.

Indeed. But many Americans are ignorant in numerous subjects, this just being one of them.

For me there is no doubt that earth and universe is indeed much older than 10.000 years, and that evolution happens.

I personally agree with the former and not with the latter. But like I said, it's mostly academic.

If it contradicts the bible, well one thing i say is you cannot take the bible literally. Maybe some people cannot understand ethical behaviour without the bible, ok.

There's no definite contradiction here.

I cannot prove the non-existence of god, and i cannot prove the existence or non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters. But i can try to accept the evidence of what natural science (or better natural philosophy) found out from the 17th century until today. Maybe you have to believe in something, even if it is science.

Indeed, science has been called the religion of the agnostics.

From one of A. lady's links relating to rationality against randomness:
"Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Really. I begin to doubt the MIT's reputation.

Can you be more specific?