"Nobody is trying to force anything on you or make you think differently than you do. Opinions are given and can be accepted or rejected."
Except that if you dont believe, you are destined for eternal damnation. And thats not a threat, it really is a promise.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:"Nobody is trying to force anything on you or make you think differently than you do. Opinions are given and can be accepted or rejected."
Except that if you dont believe, you are destined for eternal damnation. And thats not a threat, it really is a promise.
Steve,
I don't think you are being quite fair. Real Life, nor Intrepid, nor I (don't know about everyone else because I haven't read every single post in this thread) have said you or anyone else was destined for eternal damnation.
Non-believers keep asking us not to "tell" you how things are. We tell you how things are for us. We do not tell you that you are wrong. We tell you we have differing views and opinions.
Just so you know, Christians have no authority to damn anyone to hell or anywhere else for that matter.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Yep fossils being found contemporaneous with their supposed ancestors would be a problem for evolution, alright. I'm curious, rather than tossing it out why is something other than evolution not considered?
Do you have another *scientific* theory, other than evolution, to suggest that we consider?
Are you asking us to consider theories outside of science?
Do you think that scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton were 'unscientific' in their belief that God created the world?
real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Yep fossils being found contemporaneous with their supposed ancestors would be a problem for evolution, alright. I'm curious, rather than tossing it out why is something other than evolution not considered?
Do you have another *scientific* theory, other than evolution, to suggest that we consider?
Are you asking us to consider theories outside of science?
Do you think that scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton were 'unscientific' in their belief that God created the world?
Well, first of all, you're question does not answer my question. I'm not sure if you're avoiding my question, or just don't understand what I'm asking.
But I'll answer your question anyway.... Yes, any scientist who believes that a God created the world is being unscientific with that particular belief (this is by defininition). But that doesn't mean that they can't believe what they want, and still behave like a scientist. Science only requires that it's *theories* be naturalistic, it doesn't require that it's *practitioners* ultimately hold to an assumption of naturalism.
Now, back to my question above, with regard to the evidence which farmerman has noted, "Are you asking us to consider theories outside of science" when you ask us why we don't consider other theories besides evolution?
Simply put, belief in evolution does not compel anything like the personal commitment demanded by religious faith in a divine creator and redeemer. Thus, while it is tempting to pit Genesis against evolution as competing myths of human origins, many Christians, including scientists and theologians, do embrace evolution.
October 1, 2005
Evolution as Zero-Sum Game
By KENNETH L. WOODWARD
ACCORDING to the tired journalistic trope, the "intelligent design" trial in Harrisburg, Pa., is "Scopes II," or the latest cultural clash between science and religion. But that view obscures the issues at stake - issues I am happy to see the Pennsylvania trial raising, even though I am a religious believer who recognizes evolution and does not think intelligent design theory belongs in any school's science curriculum.
No less a religious authority than the late pope, John Paul II, said that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. It is a thrilling theory that has demonstrated its explanatory power over and over again in diverse scientific disciplines. Intelligent design theory has no such record. Why then, do some religious parents want intelligent design theory taught alongside evolution in public school classrooms?
For some religious fundamentalists, this may indeed be a way of making room for God in science classes. But for many parents, who are legitimately concerned about what their children are being taught, I suspect that it is a way of countering those proponents of evolution - and particularly of evolutionary biology - who go well beyond science to claim that evolution both manifests and requires a materialistic philosophy that leaves no room for God, the soul or the presence of divine grace in human life.
It is one thing to bracket the divine in pursuit of scientific truth - after all, there is no way to include God as a factor in a scientific experiment. But it is something else to suppose that scientific methods and the truths thus arrived at constitute the only kind of knowledge we can have.
In science, as in other practices, there are those whose worldviews are shaped entirely by the methods and disciplines of their work. Thus the Nobel laureate James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, declares that "one of the greatest gifts science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of the supernatural." A historian of ideas would immediately recognize this perspective as an echo of the 19th-century clash between proponents of science and religion.
And then there are evolutionists of a more philosophical bent, like Michael R. Rose of the University of California at Irvine, who use evolution to explain everything, including religion. The penchant to make evolution the intellectual linchpin of a wholly atheist outlook is manifest in the writings of Richard Dawkins, professor of public understanding of science at Oxford, whose public understanding of human beings is that they are "survival machines" for genes.
It is unlikely that parents who want intelligent design taught on equal footing with evolution read books by Drs. Wilson, Rose or Dawkins. Chances are they are among the Americans who are more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth than in evolution. That tendency appalls some people but should surprise no one.
Most Americans, as they go about constructing lives and building families, making choices and exercising free will, do not think of themselves as gene survival machines or as random products of an impersonal process that whispers, in effect, "I am all that is." And most Christians do accept the Virgin Birth as part of a larger religious narrative that tells them there is a God who created the world - one who cares so passionately about humankind that his only son took human form.
Simply put, belief in evolution does not compel anything like the personal commitment demanded by religious faith in a divine creator and redeemer. Thus, while it is tempting to pit Genesis against evolution as competing myths of human origins, many Christians, including scientists and theologians, do embrace evolution.
That is one good reason not to see the trial in Pennsylvania as a repeat of Scopes. The danger in intelligent design is not just that it is bad science, but that it seeks to enlist evidence from science in the service of religious truth while denying evolutionary processes like mutation and natural selection. But the designer God of intelligent design is no more necessary to Christianity (or other monotheisms) than was the deistic God of Newtonian physics. In both cases, God ends up being made in the image of an intellectual system, much like Aristotle's unmoved mover. That is not the God of revelation.
ONE way out of the classroom conflict over teaching evolution would be to devise courses that examine the cultural uses to which evolution is put. But such courses would inevitably involve dialogue with religious concepts and perspectives - and thus raise further objections from those who see no place at all for religious ideas in public education.
And so, while I think intelligent design is the wrong approach, I sympathize with those parents who object to the materialist assumptions that can easily color the teaching of evolution, absent any acknowledgment of the claims of religion. Those parents are smart enough to know that, like nature, some teachers abhor a vacuum.
Kenneth L. Woodward, a contributing editor at Newsweek, is working on a book about religion and American culture since 1950.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
brahmin wrote:brahmin wrote:Pauligirl wrote:
But back to the subject, why wasn't the OT left out of the Bible? Mainly because it was written as tribal history. Tribal legends and myths, an attempt to explain the world, in terms the writers
understood. So, the god in the OT did exactly what a god in those ages was supposed to do. Wage war, terrorize the enemy, send plagues and famines, sorta a "my god's bigger than your god type of thing."
Looking at it from the outside, I can understand why it was written. I just can't understand how anybody still believes it. To give it it's due, it's an amazing book. But to me, it's a work of fiction, with just enough history and geography to be plausible to those who want to believe.
Oh, and those "people" aren't people. They are gods. Just like yours, with creation stories, wars and tribal histories.
P
can you support the part in bold??
is it really what you just said it is ??
It is to me. But then I don't read the bible with "god colored glasses" either. Leave the supernatural out, and what you have left is tribal history.
I've read a bit of various histories about that age, some Sumerian myths, the Gilgamesh epic, other culture's flood myths and creation legends. The reading I've done leads me to the conclusions I've made. Is it enough to change anybody else's mind....doubt it.
Interesting reading:
The Bible Unearthed : Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684869128/102-0860120-6590517?v=glance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/history/Lect2.pdf
Pagels, Elaine. (1988) Adam, Eve & the Serpent
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/serpent.html
Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/mcnutt_ancientIsrael.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html
African gods
http://www.scns.com/earthen/other/seanachaidh/godafrica.html
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/mythology/22396
Not everything here agrees with what I've said, but it does give a background.
P
real life saidQuote:Do you think that scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton were 'unscientific' in their belief that God created the world?
Isaac Newton had no opinions based upon data or evidence, whereas leonardo did.
Youve dismissed my answer to you re contemporaneity between fossils negating ancestry. Our model based only upon evidence supports the rise of "cousins" from a common ancestor. There are no problems out there that have not been solved within an evolution model. I daresay that Creationism cant state that.
Some problems for you that are insurmountable(IMO)
1How did all those species, unique to only one tiny spot on the globe get where they are?
2How did species become extinct in exact sequences that refute Creation?
3How does the "reoccurence"of similar morphological features over long periods of time fit the Creationist model
4 How do all the intermediate fossil phyla and classes that have morph features similar to both those classes occur in a Creation mold
5Howdoes biostratigraphy fit a Creationist model?
6How does a coincident environmental feature occur at just the right time as a new series of morphological changes in organisms is introduced. (plants and animals)
I could go on and on, but Ive gotta fix the weedwhacker.
farmerman, If we think about it, it's really sad how creationists continue to refute evolution based on their fears. The recent finds of insects and animals in the caves of Tennessee is an excellent example of evolution. Since they live in a pitch-dark environment, they have learned to survive without eyes, and their other senses have become more accute - not only to survive from preditors, but also to find food. The only difference between their surface cousins and the darkness survivors are all necessitated for survival. Amazing stuff.
Just a thought ~ Not all creationists.....based on their fears.
cicerone imposter wrote:farmerman, If we think about it, it's really sad how creationists continue to refute evolution based on their fears. The recent finds of insects and animals in the caves of Tennessee is an excellent example of evolution. Since they live in a pitch-dark environment, they have learned to survive without eyes, and their other senses have become more accute - not only to survive from preditors, but also to find food. The only difference between their surface cousins and the darkness survivors are all necessitated for survival. Amazing stuff.
Why is it sad, CI? What fears? Do all Creationists have the same thoughts? We know that all evolutionists do not. What is wrong with a Creationist believing in evolution in conjunction with the creation. I, for one, have indicated many times that this is my opinnion. Only a fool would totally discount evolutionary processes since the evidence is there to be seen. You have to remember, everything that evolves had to start from something. Evolution is from something...not the beginning of something. Are you just catching up with animals in caves? Sea creatures at the bottom of the sea cannot see either. Did you know that? Have you wondered why we do not have webbed hands and feet since we like to swim in nice warm swimming pools so often? :cool:
At least some of us Creationists are open to parts of evolution. You, on the other hand, just laugh and point fingers at those who have a different opinion than you do. It would be refreshing to see you with an original thought that did not ridicule other people. Jumping in on the heels of Farmerman and Frank does not do them a service, nor yourself.
Intrepid wrote:
At least some of us Creationists are open to parts of evolution. You, on the other hand, just laugh and point fingers at those who have a different opinion than you do.
We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.
If you KNOW God, you have NO fear.
Brandon9000 Wrote:
Quote:We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.
So, because we believe in something greater than man, you ridicule us? Well, since we believe God is superior to man (science), wouldn't it make sense for us to ridicule you since you feel man (science) is superior to God (at least some believe that, don't know about you personally)? Yet, we do not. I don't think you would like it much either. No one likes to be ridiculed for any reason.
Brandon9000 wrote:Intrepid wrote:
At least some of us Creationists are open to parts of evolution. You, on the other hand, just laugh and point fingers at those who have a different opinion than you do.
We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.
Why ridicule at all? Just because some people have a belief system that is different than yours does not give you licence to ridicule them for it. You must have a ball with other cultures, religions and those who have never heard of science.
Momma Angel wrote:If you KNOW God, you have NO fear.
Anyone who KNOWS the murderous, barbaric god of the Bible and who doesn't fear that monster...
...really needs help!
You fear the monster, MA. You just are too frightened to see that you do.
Some of your "beliefs" ARE ridiculous...so it makes sense to ridicule them. In effect...we are not ridiculing them...they are ridiculous in themselves. By dreaming them up...you are ridiculing logic and common sense.
So you really should stop complaining.
Frank Apisa wrote:Some of your "beliefs" ARE ridiculous...so it makes sense to ridicule them. In effect...we are not ridiculing them...they are ridiculous in themselves. By dreaming them up...you are ridiculing logic and common sense.
So you really should stop complaining.
Who are you to tell me or anyone else for that matter what is ridiculous? Do I say these things to you?
Oh, I see, if I didn't think such ridiculous things then you wouldn't have to ridicule them? Isn't that kind of like she deserved to be raped because she wore a short skirt?
Be a man! At least take responsibility for your own actions. Do not blame me because you ridicule me.
And I am not complaining. I am telling you that you are offending me and you obviously don't care.
"What fears?"
THESE:
Proverbs 28:14
Blessed is the man who always fears; but one who hardens his heart falls into trouble. (WEB)
Happy is the man that feareth alway; But he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief. (ASV)
Happy is the man in whom is the fear of the Lord at all times; but he whose heart is hard will come into trouble. (BBE)
Happy is the man that feareth always; but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into evil. (DBY)
Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief. (KJV)
Happy is the man that feareth always: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief. (WBS)
Happy is the man that feareth alway; but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into evil. (JPS)
O the happiness of a man fearing continually, And whoso is hardening his heart falleth into evil. (YLT)
Did I miss any interpretation/revision?
It might help if you understood the word fear in these verses.
