Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Avatar · Jul 20, 2002

You don't know?!

ok->
I no longer have the URL of that page, it's copied on my hdd, and I can't remember from where I got the paper.

Lilith - We Hardly Knew You

There was a time when you were not a slave, remember that. You walked alone, full of laughter, you bathed bare-bellied. You say you have lost all recollection of it, remember . . . You say there are not words to describe it, you say it does not exist. But remember. Make an effort to remember. Or, failing that, invent.

I started out this project in the hope that I could write something about Lilith. As a topic, Lilith seemed a great idea for a class rooted firmly in feminism; Lilith, who was Adam's first wife as the story goes. The strong female role model around whose banner rally many feminists, the symbolic woman who stands on her own, has a power all her own. Someone who lives outside of the realm of patriarchy, and needs no male figures, in fact someone who shuns the male altogether. And yet, as I sit here with research material strewn about from Jewish texts to World Wide Web URLs that go nowhere, I look at these papers and have to wonder if the viewpoint we have built is entirely correct. Perhaps it would be better if I were not to start by asking the question, "who is Lilith?" but rather "what is Lilith?" For the sake of clarity, I am going to divide this paper into three portions: one which explores the closest I have been able to come to an a priori account of Lilith, predating Biblical or Talmudic references. A second portion that will deal with the original question, "who is Lilith?" as people from scholars to the media have come to widely understand her. Finally, a portion that explores how all of the information has come to manifest today, and the implications this may have on feminism as a whole. In my research, I have found that in order to understand the present, we must deal with the past, or in this case, the non prevalent idea, or place of origin outside of Western thinking. To this end, I will begin with the pre-Biblical accounts of Lilith, follow with the Biblical ideas, and end with manifestations and ideas about how all of the information to be presented has come together.

PART ONE

"…In the Beginning…"

The earliest text of any kind pertaining to Lilith that I was able to locate comes from an arguable translation of a Gilgamesh Prologue. The Gilgamesh myth dates back as far as ancient Babylonia and Sumer. The story of Gilgamesh is among the first epic writings found. Gilgamesh was considered in early times, that is, pre-Middle Ages, to be an historical character. The lifetime of the historical Gilgamesh cannot be accurately determined, however, it is generally agreed that he lived between 2800 and 2500 BCE (See Dalley, 40). The passage that should concern us for this writing is as follows: "a dragon had built its nest at the foot of a tree/the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown/and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle/But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight/came to her rescue" (Humm, 1 from Kramer 38:1f).

Taking this passage at face value, one can assume that Lilith is not even human, that in fact she is a demon. She has no real 'power' per se either. The story goes on to tell of how Gilgamesh vanquishes the dragon, at which time the Zu- bird flew away, and Lilith flees into the woods, "petrified with fear". The image of Lilith portrayed in this short passage is one of a 'demon' whose attendance can be construed to be little more than an annoyance, or at best, an evil presence. There is reason to believe that Lilith is without gender, or at least of no particular gender. "[T]he father of Gilgamesh was a lillu, (a man with demonic qualities)" (Dalley, 40). This passage about Gilgamesh's father may furthermore indicate that the 'qualities' possessed may not be evil, but rather only extraordinary. It is difficult to believe that a hero as great as Gilgamesh would be born of demonic stock; rather, it seems likely that Gilgamesh's parentage would have to be special to endow him with the qualities he possesses which make all of his heroic adventures possible.

The word 'demon' may be particularly apt in that it may also describe an evil spirit. Aaron Leitch makes an interesting observation about the etymology of the name Lilith:

In Sumerian, the word "lil" means "air" . . . The oldest known term relating to Lilith would be the Sumerian word "lili" (plural "lilitu"), which seems to imply the same definition as our word, "spirit". In many ancient cultures, the same word for "air" or "breath" would also be used for "spirit" . . . Therefore, the Lilitu were either a specific type of demon, or were simply "spirits" in general (Leitch, 1).

At the very heart of the Lilith myth, it is a reasonable possibility that the name, and indeed what came to be the being Lilith, represents nothing more than a spirit or an apparition. By definition, a "spirit" can be thought of as merely the immortal, nonphysical part of humanity, or the sum of an individual's mental and moral qualities. This is not to deny the pejorative aspects of the definition of the word, but rather to illustrate that at an a priori point, Lilith may be quite benign, embodying the intangible aspects of Humankind. At her heart, it is possible that Lilith is much more than scholars and religious thinkers tend to believe.

The next available literary work skips ahead millennia. Although I had hoped there might be further record of Lilith in between, none could be found. The next time she is mentioned is in a text known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered nearly one hundred years ago along the Dead Sea, near the river Jordan. Carbon dating processes have dated these scrolls to between 3 BCE and 68 CE. Although the passage to follow is in all probability based on Isaiah 34:14, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not considered a biblical text per se. The fragment from the scrolls that should concern us is as follows: "And I, the Sage,/declare the grandeur of his radiance/in order to frighten and terrify/all the spirits of the ravaging angels/and the bastard spirits,/demons, Liliths, owls and [jackals]/and those who strike unexpectedly/to lead astray the spirit of knowledge" (see Humm, 1).

The two points of interest here are that Lilith is disassociated from other 'demons' and held in her own right, and that the plural is used to refer to Lilith (see Humm, 1). The two things that interest me about this for the sake of my paper is that we see an evolution of Lilith as an entity unto herself, and the fact that the wording implies the new category contains more than one Lilith. One has the distinct impression that a 'Lilith' is some form of special demon, or different sort of evil. It would be fair to assume that this opens the possibility for Lilith to become more human. Perhaps a Lilith could then be seen as an entity more akin to humanity, rather than just a general sort of demon. It would not be a leap from this point to create a myth based on a single entity known as Lilith. If biblical writers were to encounter such a being, it seems reasonable to me that the writers of any given midrash, (Jewish creative retelling), may draw upon sources at hand. "These tales did not emerge from a vacuum in the Middle Ages, where they flourished, but are an outgrowth in every respect, of the biblical, Rabbinic and folk traditions that preceded them" (Schwartz, 341). It is reasonable that writers of any given era would draw upon all the forces that were then at work around them. This may explain how Lilith first appeared in more contemporary works.

PART TWO

"…and the LORD said…"

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27). So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Gen. 2:21-22). In these two verses from the book of Genesis, we see more than a problem in consistency, we see the birthplace of the legend of Lilith as it stands today in Judeo-Christian terms. The Torah, as is widely known, is literally the word of God. By this merit, it cannot be altered in any way, or refuted by any means. These writings are sacred; they are fact. As such, students of the Torah were left with only one conclusion: there were two women in the Garden of Eden -- one which was created alongside of man, and another who was created from man. The story goes on to relay the tale of Adam and Eve, his wife, with no further direct mention to the first of the two. What became of the first woman?

This first woman is believed by Jewish scholars to have been Lilith, and the following is her story as widely believed in the Jewish tradition. Lilith is said to be the First wife of Adam, created from the dust just as Adam was, created simultaneously and equal to Adam in all respects. As the mythology is told, Adam wished that Lilith should be subservient to him, particularly in the realm of sex. It is said that Adam wished to have sex with Lilith in a missionary position, thereby placing her on the bottom, and she refused him this. In fact, she "[refused] to let him dominate her in any way. Instead, she insisted that they were equal" (Schwartz, 343). It is said that having become frustrated and exasperated with Adam, Lilith spoke the Ineffable Name of the Lord and with this power, flew out of the Garden of Eden and away from Adam.

Lilith then flew to the Red Sea, where she found a cave in which to live and took demons for mates, giving birth to thousands of demon offspring who populate the world and cause all manner of hardship to men. Meanwhile, Adam, missing his companion, beseeches God to bring her back to him. God takes pity on Adam and sends three angels in search of Lilith, the object being to return her to Adam. These three angels, (Senoy, Sensenoy, and Semengelof) find her by the Red Sea and command her to return. Lilith stands her ground and refuses.

In punishment for her refusal, the angels proclaim they will kill one hundred of her demon children each day until she returns to Adam. Lilith exclaims that even this fate is better than living in submission to Adam. Furthermore, she vows to kill the children of Adam, stating that she would take the boy's lives until they were eight days old, and the girls until they were twenty days old. She is even said to have proclaimed that she would attack the mothers in childbirth, and attack men while they slept in order to rob them of their semen, which she would use to create more demon spawn to make up for the one hundred lost to her each day.

Lilith, having still maintained a sense of pity, promised that any child who bore an amulet or had within their room a carving containing the names of the three angels who had punished her would be left in peace. As the mythology goes, this is the arrangement to this day.

There are a number of variations to the story, some additions in other works, but these are the high points that all stories I have encountered agree upon. What may we, as scholars, draw from such a story? What effects does it have upon the culture that accepts the myth? Schwartz offers an idea: "Times of stress, like marriage, birth and death, inevitably become the focus of rituals, superstitions and folklore . . . it is the supernatural, after all, that provides an explanation for all kinds of events, especially misfortunes" (339). Lilith becomes a scapegoat for misfortune. "As queen of the Demons, she kills babies in their cribs, (apparently, this was the folk explanation for SIDS)" (Smith, 1). It is more than simply this, however.

Much more interesting is the way the myth is used to shape a culture. "Lilith is . . . the projection of the negative fears and desires of the Rabbis who created her" (Schwartz, 345). Not only do Lilith's proclamations explain a child's possible death after birth and a mother's possible death during, they force a moral code: "it is forbidden for a man to sleep alone in a house, lest Lilith get hold of him" (Weigle, 254). This seems to me to be a way to ensure that men will have no ejaculation save for intercourse, and if they should, they are then to blame for God himself knows how many demon spawn. "Lilith becomes the repository and incubationary of the male sexual drive that can not be satisfied by normal means" (Smith, 1). Men live in fear of Lilith, but the ramifications for women are far greater. For them, Lilith spelled out the precise way they should not be according to God's will.

Lilith, as we have seen, refused to be subordinate in any way to Adam. The Rabbis who studied the story thus saw her as exactly the example of what not to do; she was "the negative side . . . of woman. Lilith is assertive, seductive, and ultimately destructive; Eve, [by way of comparison], is passive, faithful, and supportive" (Schwartz, 343). For the early followers of Judaism, Lilith became the vehicle for maintaining women in a state of submission. Any means of assertion or independence by any woman was seen as qualities of Lilith, and by extension, evil qualities. If women were to remain in the good graces of God, they had to be submissive, they had to accept Eve as a role model for themselves. It may serve us to remember, however, that Eve is traditionally held responsible for the fall from grace, and so women of the time had a no win scenario.

To make matters even worse, another interesting development occurred when Lilith was demonized. As much as Lilith was used to explain away misfortune, she also became an excuse for men in the realm of infidelity. According to the myth, Lilith spawns many hundreds of demons each day, which then roam the earth causing hardship. Among the hardships these demons create is the seduction of otherwise pious men, thereby leading them down an ungodly path. A story from around the 8th or 9th century tells a tale of just such an occurrence. The man in question subsequently encounters the Prophet Elijah, who utterly absolves him of any guilt associated with the act, stating "You are free from sin, for this was a demon" (see Schwartz, 345). Although the demon in question was not said to be Lilith herself, she is associated with her, in the same manner that all acts which correlate to Lilith's are deemed evil. In such a hierarchy, it is reasonable to assume that the people of the time would associate common women as demons in such cases. The end result is that men are absolved from any evil, and women become the embodiment of all evil. One can see how such a vicious circle could lead to historical occurrences like the burning of 'witches' in Salem.

The truly ironic quality about this whole biblical slant of the story of Lilith is that it has almost no basis in biblical study. Lilith is mentioned by name but once in some versions of the Bible, (Isaiah, 34:14), in which a vague and fleeting reference is made to her as the "night hag" in a somewhat apocalyptic verse. Lilith owes her link to Judaism almost entirely to a Midrash found in a text known as the Alphabet of Ben Sira. This document has been dated between the 8th and 10th centuries and is the first known place the myth of Lilith appears as understood in Biblical terms. It is not, however, a Jewish text, nor is the myth found in any Rabbinic tradition. The entire writing of the Alphabet of Ben Sira is questionable. "Some see it as an impious digest of risqué folk-tales. Others have suggested that it was a polemical broadside aimed at Christians, Karaites, or some other opposing movement. I personally would not rule out the possibility that it was actually an anti-Jewish satire" (Segal, 1). Whatever the Alphabet of Ben Sira was at its conception, it was somewhere accepted by Jews as myth. People came to believe this story was as rooted in fact as the Bible, likely spurred by the passages that opened this section of my paper. It is altogether possible that Lilith had nothing whatsoever to do with Adam, and that the common perception of those who feel they know the myth of Lilith may well be inaccurate. Whether Lilith came in the front door as myth or through the back door as mere interpretation that somehow managed to gain a foothold in Jewish mythos, her staying power has been strong enough to last to the present day.

PART THREE

"…revelation…"

What then, does this mean in our contemporary studies relating to feminism and religion? From a Jewish standpoint, it is reasonable that Lilith would be considered a champion for women's religious lives and values. Patriarchy, as we have seen, has demonized all aspects of the popular Lilith myth with the end result being that women are considered evil when they show the qualities of the mythical Lilith. As Lilith's replacement as the wife of Adam, Eve represents a less than empowered character. Traditional religious ideas have little in the way of powerful female figures. As Tara Warren illustrated in her lecture on October 8, the Virgin Mary herself is not only forever nothing more than a mother and nurturer, she is also an unattainable level of perfection.

The traditional myth of Lilith, however, would be an ideal example of what Muszynski speaks of when she calls patriarchy an historical phenomenon (Muszynski, 64). It is unreasonable to assume Lilith's evil nature based on nothing more than what prior religious thinkers, almost exclusively men, have made of her. Religious feminists would look at the myth of Lilith and see the character of Lilith as one who defies the ideas and standards set by the 'fathers' of Jewish and Christian traditions. She demanded equality above anything else, and she refused to allow even God himself to lure her back to Adam, and consequently into a life of servitude. In this framework Lilith becomes almost a challenge to traditional myth. She is a feminist way of saying that the ideas put forth by a patriarchal culture are unacceptable. To embrace what goes against the culture is ultimately a way of stating that the culture in question is not acceptable to those who would embrace the alternative.

An excellent example of this is the recent Lilith Fair concerts that have happened annually for the past two years. Sarah McLachlan, in an interview dealing with Lilith Fair, told the reporter that she got the idea from the traditional Jewish myth of Lilith being Adam's first wife, and her refusal to be dominated. "I loved the egalitarian element of that, I loved the reactionary element of it, it was a bit cheeky, and I thought it was very perfect for Lilith . . . she's such a strong and wonderful feminist figure, yet we've never been taught that. So I feel really proud to have helped to put her back on her rightful goddess position" (McLachlan, 1). An interesting statement, as now we see a new generation embracing Lilith as a goddess.

But are we correct? Consider the evolution of Lilith as portrayed in the pictures seen here. Directly to the left we have an image of Lilith from antiquity. She possesses many qualities, beauty as well as a darker element noted in the clawed feet and wings. The image seen below to the right is somewhat different. This is the logo used to promote Lilith Fair. In it we see a distinctly more human idea of Lilith, with all aspects of any evil qualities removed. She is represented as nothing more than a beautiful woman, the rays behind her perhaps signifying some hidden divinity.

I believe that of all of the readings I have done for this course, the one that haunts me most is the work we read by E. Spelman. Her ideas that it is unreasonable to assume the existence of a universal woman seem among the most valid I have encountered (see Spelman, 137). Looking at all of the facts outlined in this work, we have been able to rightfully call Lilith a spirit, a demon, a wife, a champion and a goddess to name a few. We have seen that she can be belligerent, independent, evil, thieving, murderous and feminist. Can we rightfully select whatever aspects of Lilith suit our needs at the time and call this being Lilith? Was Sarah McLachlan any more correct when she called Lilith a goddess than the 'fathers' were when they called her a demon? I believe that Spelman would disagree.

Rather, I believe it would be more useful and indeed more valid to think of Lilith in a different way. Leitch makes an astute observation that is worth consideration:

Adam was created to perfection, [in the image of God,] who is not seen as being male or female, but as both at once . . . thus, if God is male and female, the mother and the father, then Adam . . . must also have originally been male and female in one. To be otherwise would have been to be unbalanced, and thus imperfect" (Leitch, 1).

When we consider the first part of the paper, and we see that etymologically speaking the name 'Lilith' may well spring from the word 'spirit', it is intriguing to find that the name 'Adam' comes from the Hebrew 'adamah,' meaning 'earth'. As the earth, Adam could be said to represent the tangible, the elemental, the raw components that make humankind able to live. As spirit, Lilith may well represent the intangible, the transcendent, the divine components that make humankind strive for an understanding greater than itself. When both are brought together, we have the complete picture of a human being. The genders come to represent components that should strive for equality in consideration rather than independence from one another.

This idea is not without historical literary precedent. If one considers the writings of Plato in The Symposium, Aristophanes makes largely the same point:

. . . originally it was different from what it is now. In the first place there were three sexes, not, as with us, two, male and female; the third partook of the nature of both the others and has vanished . . . (Plato, 59)

Curiously, Aristophanes goes on to nearly echo many of the ideas put forth by Leitch. Aristophanes says that Zeus, concerned with the power of this third sex, comes up with an idea to remedy the problem of their power: "I will cut each of them in two; in this way they will be weaker . . . they shall walk upright on two legs" (Plato, 60). Finally, Aristophanes explains the yearning of humanity for union among the sexes:

Man's original body having been thus cut in two, each half yearned for the half from which it had been severed. When they met they threw their arms around one another and embraced, in their longing to grow together again . . . when one member of a pair died and the other was left, the latter sought after and embraced another partner, which might be the half either of a female whole (what is now called woman) or a male" (Plato, 61).

The feminist movement, at the very least from a Liberal feminist standpoint, strikes me as largely a necessary attempt to attain equality among the sexes. The ideal would be a communion between both sexes in which there is no division, all humanity benefiting from the combined power that arises out of two distinct yet equal forces. For the sake of this paper, one could argue that Lilith, if taken as the shadow side of humanity or as the defiant or headstrong is a perfect compliment to Adam, who is considered penitent or grounded. Combined we achieve not only equality on levels of power but completion as human beings.

And this is what I take with me from the writing of this paper. Who is Lilith? Throughout our history she has been many things to many groups of people as we have seen, but as Spelman has pointed out, can any group of her qualities be considered without also considering all of the others? The answer to that question is that Lilith can be nearly anyone. What is Lilith? That is another matter. Seen from the above perspectives, she can represent anything from the spirit of humankind we all identify with on some level to the dark side many of us may never see. In either case, she is a part of a much greater reality, that of human consciousness, in which she runs freely. We can make use of her in whatever way seems to suit, but we would be mistaken if we were to believe for a moment that we could compartmentalize her. Lilith is a valuable component that feminists can quote from and rally to, but only inasmuch as the realization that she is more than her sex is kept intact. It may be wholly unfair, as suggested at the outset of the paper, to invent any goddess that suits. An unalterable definition of Lilith in this case seems not only unfair but also impossible. ?

Works Cited

DALLEY, STEPHANIE, Myths From Mesopotamia. Oxford University Press,

New York, ©1989

HUMM, ALAN, "Lilith" from The World Wide Web,

http://ccat.sus.upenn.edu:80/~humm/Topics/Lilith/, December

6, 1998.

LEITCH, AARON, "Lilith" from The World Wide Web,

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/Khephframes.html,

December 6, 1998.

MCLACHLAN, SARAH, From an interview presented in Lilith Fair, Produced

By High Five Entertainment, Inc. ©1997.

MUSZYNSKI, A., Race, Class, Gender. ©1991 by Jesse Vorst/Society for

Socialist Studies.

PLATO, The Symposium. Penguin Books Ltd. New York, (C)1951.

SCHWARTZ, H., "Jewish Tales of the Supernatural" from Judaism Vol. 36,

Summer 1987.

SEGAL, ELIEZER, "Looking for Lilith" from The World Wide Web,

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html,

December 6, 1998.

SMITH, JEFFREY, "Lilit, Malkah ha-Shadim" from The World Wide Web,

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/lilit.html, December 6,

1998.

SPELMAN, E., "Woman: The One & The Many" from Inessential Woman.

©1988 by Beacon Press.

WARREN, TARA, Lecture Material from October 08, 1998.

WEIGLE, MARTA, Spiders & Spinsters. University of New Mexico Press,

New Mexico, ©1982.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Zero · Jul 21, 2002

WTF.. ... ... all this outta the genesis. Cool.

Very interesting. I would rather say that Lilith is the type of woman I would like in a relationship. Assertive, so she has the brains to think for herself. Aggressive, so she constantly send warning signals when I act like a jerk so that the relationship can get patched up more quickly. Independent, so that she can create ideas of her own and discuss with me. A woman like Eve would not be so great to me.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Xev · Jul 21, 2002

Zero:

Lillith isn't actually in Genesis - not in the Bible. I think she's mentioned in the Babylonain Torah, and other misc. Jewish myths.

Sorry, had to be anal-retentive.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Zero · Jul 21, 2002

Indeed? And what is anal-retentive?

Mr. G · Jul 22, 2002

Anal-Retentive (anal stage of development): The anal stage of motivational development is characterized by the child's central area of bodily concern in the rectum. Bowel movements become a source of pleasure to the child. The child may defecate to receive pleasure. However, gaining pleasure from defecating brings the child into conflict with the parents regarding toilet training. Freud claimed that delays during this stage (or this stage occuring prematurely) can cause fixation. Fixation during the anal stage can result in anal retention in which a person exhibits compulsive cleanliness, ordderliness, or fussiness.

Mr. G · Jul 22, 2002

Others say you're 'anal retentive' because you're "full of sh*t" or being a 'tight-ass'.

harrykarry · Jul 22, 2002

actually, i think over 300 posts to this site is closer to pathetic but i love you anyways man!

and since you come from atheism, i'll pray for you.... maybe you could pray for me too as i probably need it more than you do
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

i don't necesarrily think you need to mean the words. "god help harrykarry." i think the words themselves might have some power as words of life....

back to the discussion at hand (so i don't get in trouble....)

it comes down to mans' need to sort and separate everything into catagories... it's sad really. why can't it all be taught and it all be lumped together and it all be included then let the lost children of the earth decide for themselves.... scientists would rather burn the bible then include it in the discussion... it smacks of shit... again.

Mr. G · Jul 24, 2002

harry,

...scientists would rather burn the bible then include it in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Scientists have no more reason to include the bible in science process than they have to include the National Enquirer or the World Weekly News.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Warren · Aug 1, 2002

Here's a little scenario for everyone to ponder. A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. Two questions: Is he a creationist? Can what he is doing be called science?

teerum · Aug 1, 2002

huh? clearly they are directly connected......more...Friday

lotuseatsvipers · Aug 1, 2002

zero:

Am I god? Welcome to sciforums, harrykarry. Such attacks will do nothing but earn you a cold, amused but somewhat sympathetic silence from the sciforum gurus. WNDWAA. (surely you know what THAT means?)
Click to expand...

Pathetic. You only have 20+ posts and you're calling someone else a newbie.
Click to expand...

Zero, what the hell is up with your shit talk. YOU ARE BETTER CAUSE YOUVE BEEN HERE LONGER! ROCKING, now shutup please.

And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).

I agree it (evolutions) has its flaw, but to say the earth is 6000 years old is a bit rediculous.

And to teach that in the schools is ever more rediculous.

I have seen Dr. Kent hovind (creationist speak), and the worst part about it is he makes all these claims that apparently counteract the age of the earth (the moon is getting closer to the earth this much ever year, if we go back 10000 years it would be in the middle of the earth...). All of his statements are easily invalidated if one only speaks to the correct authority. He is the source of all this creationist babble and the idea that it can somehow be TAUGHT in a classroom.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ha ha

harrykarry · Aug 1, 2002

And these religious folk say that evolutionist theory is a religion because its belief that energy is eternal (it can't be created or destroyed, yet its here, right?).

evolutionist theory is based on data right? (wether theorized or proven) the worship of data (with or without physical proof) is a religion. endorsing a belief that the physical; the rocks, the stars, the trees, even man are above god... somehow smarter.... somehow omnipotent in and of themselves, self-created and then mutated over time until intelligence as we know it (jerry springer) slowly emerges.
yes. evolution is a religion. the fact that evolutionists hide behind data and worship it as their god...is a religion... it's even very narrow minded as religions often are...

i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.

the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....

kindof like any liberal program that wants to emphasize how rediculous christianity is.... show an evangelist with a bad hairdoo...

lotuseatsvipers · Aug 1, 2002

i believe that "religious folk" aren't niave enough to believe the world is only 6,000 years old. those "religious folk" are saying data is not god. god is god. god created the energy.

Well then you have no connection at all with the creationist community. They do indeed say the earth is 6k to 10k years old through biblical dating (using the generations of people listed in the bible).

the speaker you are talking about is probably a wacko. giving creationist a bad name.... mix a scientist with a religious zelot and you'll probably get a wacko...throw in the need for attention and a few degrees and he becomes a self-appointed mouthpiece for the extreme... and heaven forbid that a christian speak out against our self-appointed creationist guru....

Kent hovind...yes he is a wacko perhaps. But he is a leading voice in creationism and the attack on evolution. I wouldn't attack him blindly if I were you because he actually does his research, he comes off sounding a lot more intelligent then you. You have yet to present ANY facts as to why evolution might be false. You are a much bigger wacko in my book.

As for worshipping and hiding behind data, that is just insane propaganda that you heard at your latest church meeting! Who is 'hiding' behind data? Do you even have slightest idea of what science is about? Seriously?

There are plenty of religious scientists in the world, and I have no doubts the huge majority of scientists have entertained the idea of creationism. But how can a scientists take anything like that at face value without any facts at all? The bible is not the be all and end all of answers, and it would be very destructive to society if we treated it as such (remember the dark ages....ya well we would still be there if the world listened to wackos like you).

At least kent hovind understands what science IS, go read a 4th grade intro book on science or something and then come back to argue.

Use fewer ellipses please, its like reading a long pause.

harrykarry · Aug 2, 2002

I hear ya barking big dog.

shit, maybe only you edjumacated folks should be allowed on sciforum.

should anti-religion be taught in the classroom? you've not given me any evidence that evolution is not an anti-religion (and as such, a religion in itself). and your pompous atitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (an instinctual thing that god allowed to be evolved into women way back probably even before eve was wearing fig leaves...)

clearly the six days it took god to create the world and my women's intuition were not days as we know them. i look forward to the paradymn shift when we have the answers (in heaven or hell).

Use fewer insults please, its like being disappointed by a little dick.

lotuseatsvipers · Aug 2, 2002

should anti-religion be taught in the classroom? you've not given me any evidence that evolution is not an anti-religion (and as such, a religion in itself). and your pompous atitude makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. (an instinctual thing that god allowed to be evolved into women way back probably even before eve was wearing fig leaves...)
Click to expand...

Sorry you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The hairs stand up on my back when I talk to idiots, what can I say.

I am so baffled by your insistance that evolution is a religion as to be left speachless. What is your definition of religion?

Why do you waste your time with the Bible if all you do is twist the meanings and words around so much that it comes out to have real meaning only in your mind. I respect eki a lot more than you, at least he understands the importance of th book you base your faith, your life, and all your assumptions on science on, has to be TRUTH at all times, or else you are just spinning your wheels.
(Either take the thing figuratively or take it literally. But if you take it figuratively don't try to apply meaning to every word and phrase, it makes you sound like a desperate moron).

shit, maybe only you edjumacated folks should be allowed on sciforum.
Click to expand...

If you believe that education teaches a person to treat things with logic and common sense then yes I agree with you. I however, believe education is mearly a means to get access to good material, no one can teach you to think. That is your problem, thinking.

As far as evolution being a religion I really don't know what you want me to explain to you. That it is a theory based on observations of the world and scientific data collected for almost 200 years now? That it is continually growing, changing and expanding to fit in line with REAL data (something RELIGION can never do, unless of course your name is harrykarry and you change your religion and your creed to fit the day of the week. "no i swear a day means 50 million years").
Perhaps if you explain HOW it is a religion, I will understand your feeble attempts to debase it, and then I can reply in kind.

harrykarry · Aug 2, 2002

I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".

get outta here. you believe only what you can see.

jesus spoke in parables because of such fools.

lotuseatsvipers · Aug 2, 2002

Originally posted by harrykarry
I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".

get outta here. you believe only what you can see.

jesus spoke in parables because of such fools.
Click to expand...

So thats your response? You quote my sig that has nothing to do with the discussion and then try and slam my intelligence and 'open mindedness' with absolutely no substance to back it up. This was after slyly sending me to 'hell' in your previous post. This is so good. Now I know what the thread starters were talking about when they said discussing creationsm is so much fun.

lol!

Lets try one last time to get something of substance out of you, I'm finding this very entertaining.

Perhaps if you explain HOW it is a religion, I will understand your feeble attempts to debase it, and then I can reply in kind.
Click to expand...

wet1 · Aug 2, 2002

So now it comes out. You see what was meant in the begininng of the thread that when theists get started it is a quick trip from there into faith.

The thing you do not hear is why creationism and here is fact to support it. What you will hear is attack at evolution because there is precious little that can be offered for creationism. There are two ways to formulate an arguement or debate. One is to present facts to support the issue. Very little of this will be done simply because there is precious little that can be offered to substantiate it. The other is to attack the validity of the concept. Which is where defenders of creationism are forced to go being as they can not pull out facts short of the bible that support it. Science can go to multiple places to support the facts. The only reason that creationism is taught in school is that you have successful policital lobbying which is a far cry from proof...

lotuseatsvipers · Aug 3, 2002

Now everyone knows my penis is small, what am i to do
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mr. G · Aug 3, 2002

harrykarry,

Evolution is a religion
Click to expand...

From Is evolution just another religion?:
"....as a metaphysic, evolutionary theory is fairly poverty-stricken. This is what should be true of a scientific theory; for the number of conclusions beyond the empirical evidence that can be conjectured is unlimited. Any theory that committed itself to a metaphysical conclusion as a logical inference would be almost certainly false."

Log in or Sign up

Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Zero Banned Banned

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Xev Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Zero Banned Banned

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Warren Registered Senior Member

teerum Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Creationism does NOT belong in science.

Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Zero Banned Banned

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Xev Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Zero Banned Banned

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Warren Registered Senior Member

teerum Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

harrykarry Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

lotuseatsvipers CloseMindedBob Registered Senior Member

Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches