posted on April 15, 2001 01:00:31 PM"In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
But what's to say that Evolution didn't take over after that? As far as I'm concerned, evolution is the force that God uses to keep life going on this everchanging planet. A force created by God and acted upon by God's Will. Evolution was not created by Man -- he simply discovered how God does it.
So why do so many supposedly "educated" people with religious fervor keep denying what is all too plainly for anyone to see what anyone who wants to take the effort of finding out about for themselves can clearly see God's Hand in all of this? Blind Faith is one thing, but a Blind Mind?
posted on April 15, 2001 01:55:43 PM
Sorry KRS, I forgot the required smiley.. !!
Borillar - I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's obvious, but to some, physics and religion are two separate things that shouldn't blend together........who knows why?????
[ edited by kraftdinner on Apr 15, 2001 01:58 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2001 02:02:56 PM
I still say that the belief in Darwinism (ie MACRO-evolution0 requires as much or more faith as do belief in the major religions I've studied. I guess it just depends on how much accountability one wants to accept.
posted on April 15, 2001 02:22:39 PM
I especcially like the evolutionists explanation for the violation of the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics in orer to make posible the THEORY of Evolution.
posted on April 15, 2001 02:52:53 PMjlp - The Bible and all of science is still evolving. Nothing is really carved in stone because we aren't sure of what happened, when. So each new piece learned is like part of a jigsaw puzzle that we try to add to the bigger picture to see where it fits in.
Common sense usually prevails in science and some things just don't fit in where they should, so theories are born. That's why there is such a separation between creation and evolution....you learn that you should believe in one OR the other because that's all there is right now. Not believing in both like Borillar pointed out.
Science has yet to be able to explain the relationship between relativity and quantum physics, so I think we're a long way off from understanding the tie in between creation and evolution.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Apr 15, 2001 03:10 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2001 02:59:23 PMI especcially like the evolutionists explanation for the violation of the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics in orer to make posible the THEORY of Evolution.
Please expound, jlpiece. Maybe I've eaten too much sugar today, but I fail to see what one has to do with the other.
posted on April 15, 2001 03:06:43 PM
A great deal of the problem with belief in the scriptural story of creation is the insistance on the literal understanding of the translation of many Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words that are obviously used in a
poetic or figurative way. The creative days are obviously not 24 hour days but periods of time. People refuse to allow such usage who will not bat an eye at you telling them that things were different in your father's day.
They want it to read like a research paper.
Sometimes the languages have narrower meanings such as greek has several words for love - romantic love/family love/principled love/ which is much more specific than
English but Hebrew speaks of the circle of the earth and the word can have the meaning of a sphere also. It is less specific than English. Too many are eager to hear what they want to hear....
[ edited by gravid on Apr 15, 2001 03:09 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2001 03:56:44 PM
Yes, Snowegret, the ICR is still around and publishing its total nonsense. Since evolution is found in nature and God created nature IMO, therefore evolution is God's creation and we are just trying to figure out how it all works.
Science: is a body of knowlege that can be disproven.
Religion cannot be disproven, therefore, religion is not science.
A Scientific Theory, such as the Theory of Evolution holds more weight than the word 'theory' does in common useage. In common useage, a 'theory' is something akin to a complete guess with no foundation of facts; but in Science, a Scientific Theory is based upon a large body of facts that can measured and tested by anyone and the trail of evidence leads to some very strong conclusions based upon the hard data.
posted on April 15, 2001 04:07:07 PMgravid, you are very right about that. The Old testiment is full of slang words used by ancient Hebrews and should not be taken in a litteral context.
Example: the number '40'.
According to one well-know and respected scholar of ancient Hebrew, the number fourty was meant to signifiy that a long period of time had elapsed, especially in a subjective way. The Old Testiment is full of the number fourty, and if you give it this correct translation as the real slang term that it was, the story reads a lot more sensible.
They do make Christian Bibles that have a direct Aramaic, Greek, Latin to English translation. I suggest that anyone so interested should read one, especially the Old Testiment, where the stories are *much* clearer and more sensible than the KJV translations.
Do you realize that the ancient Hebrew phrase that was translated as "witch" actually is closer to the word 'poisoner'? Whether 'poisoner' refers to someone physically poisoning people, or it refers to someone who is spreading discontent by refuting the dogma, I am not sure of. Yet, think of all of the millions of people butchered because of that one small, translational error! Can any devout Christians afford to not read the real translated Bible?
posted on April 15, 2001 04:44:58 PM
I, too believe in a mixture of the two. Julesy in answer to your question, YES you probably did eat too much sugar today. kraftdinner your post made the most sense, and I pretty much agree with you on both fronts science, and our understanding of ancient scriptures are still evolving everyday. If you told a scientist 10 years ago, what scientists today believe, they would laugh.
How hard will tomorrows scientists be laughing at today's?
posted on April 15, 2001 05:45:14 PM
I somehow missed the Christian bashing, unless one assumes that the only Christian view is one that assumes a literal interpretation of the Bible and discounts evolution based upon that belief. There are a great many Christians in this country which see no incompatibility between their beliefs and evolution.
posted on April 15, 2001 06:07:39 PM
The first synthesis that I read about traditional religious beliefs and evolution, about 30 years ago, was written by the Jesuit priest, Tielhard de Chardin. Below is an article in Wired Magazine about him.
posted on April 15, 2001 06:41:26 PMjlpiece asks us: "How often have you heard the phrase: Scientists NOW believe..." and believe it or not, it is a good question to answer!
As jlpiece probably missed in a few posts above his, I gave a common definition of what science is: "Science: is a body of knowlege that can be disproven." But I did not expand upon this unless someone had a comment about it.
Science can be disproven. But disproven, how? Well, the simple answer is that since Science is based upon hard data and proveable and verifiable facts and a bit of keen thinking, then only more hard data and proveable and verifiable facts will make us think otherwise.
As the Great American Far-Right Christian leaders always tell us: there is no such thing as Global Warming. When just a few years back, over 200 famous Nobel scientists all signed a document stating that Global Warming is a fact, and had it presented to the United Nations, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the others correctly pointed out that the document was worthless in proving that Global Warming is a fact!
Now, not to side with them on this, but it is true that: The Opinions of scientists does not constitute Scientific Opinion! That's right: you need "hard data and proveable and verifiable facts " to base your conclusions upon. Just because the person is a scientist and is scientifically trained does not mean that their opinions by themselves are valid. Try this: ask a scientist what they think about a given controversial subject. Next, ask them to write and publish a scientific paper on it. Would the two match? Likely not as would!
So when you hear scientists say,"We Now Believe ...", you'll know that its grounded on hard science!
!!
