 |
All I'm saying is if you really want to get technical about this... Neither Evolution OR Creation can be supported properly if you do your research... Carbon dating is not accurate and has many holes. And if people were truly scientific, they would acknowledge this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
Pardon me... <Correction> "More unbelievable than Creation", was what I meant to say.
Correction<"More unbelievable than Creation", is what I meant to say">Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
And also, if Biologists jumped off a Bridge, would you jump too? Sorry to be blunt, but you have to test everything for yourself. That is my point. Just because he is a Biologist does not make him a "Self thinker". Media/Government rule a lot in our lives today. If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves. Our society today is already proving that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
This is an oxymoron in itself, because Science today seems to be finding ways to back its beliefs on Evolution "Non-Scientifically". Just by teaching that Evolution is fact is going against every rule they stand for, if they're true intention is to "DISPROVE". The "big Bang Theory" CANNOT be "PROVEN" any more than Creation. If people actually think about this and open their eyes, they would acknowledge this. In my mind, it is a battle of faith EITHER WAY you look at it. Except my faith involves a Savior and a Hope for the future. And I agree with your concept of making people see things that can never be made to be seen. Some people choose to see what they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by KalFour
Complete harmony?Quote:
So you are saying that you believe in a Big Bang that apparently happened billions of years ago and allowed everything to perfectly fall in place in complete harmony.
Are you kidding?
If things fell into complete harmony humans wouldn't have struggled for centuries just to live on this highly unstable planet. Floods, fires, earthquakes, blizzards, droughts, and active volcanos still make it hard today. Have humans adapted? Of course we have. It's been long and tough on us and even close to not being during the last mini ice age, when humans almost didn't make it. I just don't get how people have the audacity to claim perfectness when it's been nothing of the sort. I would love to see just how perfect you thought the earth was before we harnessed the power of fire and started cooking our food. That's the problem with people today, we don't ever think about how things were for early humans. We think because we have it easy today it was always that way.
Ohhhhhhhhhh I seeQuote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
We shouldn't take the word of professionals who are actually out there doing tests, searching for answers, and finding proof of what they say over someone toting around a book that was written by uneducated heathens thousands of years ago. I get it, forget using our brain, what the hell do we need that for? We just need to pick up the Bible or listen to our preachers.
I don't have to test anything. I have read both sides and have used my own brain to tell me what is believable and what is not. I know the Bible is not factual because it does not comply with history in so many parts of it. I just showed a few posts ago an example of this and it was completely ignored. So before you go and accuse me of not doing homework I suggest you go back to that post read it, and do some homework of your own.
So you are saying you believe an invisible sky wizard pointed his finger and poof! The universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement? Good and evil are dictated by the sky wizard and the underground wizard (which the sky wizard allows to exist) and a book full of ambiguity that man edited? And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire? I'm not asking you to believe in evolution - I'm asking you look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, and to study and comprehend the scientific method before you go spouting off about deception.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
We do agree on that!Quote:
If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves.
This is your point of view and that is fine. No one is trying to make you see anything, but you sure seem to be trying to push yourself and you're views. And they say that Christians push their views. Quite the contradiction don't you think? Believe what you want, you're going to no matter any one says to you... you're missing the whole point of what I'm trying to say because you have told yourself to believe one thing. Try to calm down cowboy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
Why is everyone getting so defensive? I'm simply stating it takes just as much faith OR more to believe in Evolution. Believe what you want! We're just discussing, which is what this is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I know they attack with terms like "sky wizzard" when they have no real defense. The issue is of course, I have always said I could not understand how anyone can beelive the fairly tale of some mysterious energy bolt hitting some pool of some substance and poof, there was life.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
And that life had some product they could eat ( live on)
Then somehow that one little spark of life mutated and from that all sea life, all animal life and all trees, grass and flowers all came from that one living cell. To me you got to be smoking some pretty good stuff to even dream up that, and more to accept that as a possible idea.
I have enjoyed reading this thread since it started.
Normally, I keep to myself when it comes to this subject.
I have just one question and would be interested in everyone's opinion on it.
If we believe the Bible, our Earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
How do you explain scientific evidence that our Earth is more like 4.5 Billion years old?
Yes, we do. We know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Two of these people are Apostles of Jesus Christ who walked with him, St. Matthew and St. John.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
St. Mark is a disciple of Jesus Christ who also doubled as St. Peter's secretary. In fact, the Gospel according to St. Mark could easily be called, the Gospel according to St. Peter as transcribed by St. Mark.
St. Luke is another disciple of Jesus Christ who walked with the Lord after His resurrection. His Gospel is a compilation of information which the good physician gathered from those who had walked with Jesus Christ from the beginning.
This information has been known for 2000 years. It is only recently that skeptics have begun to claim that the authors of the Gospels were not known.
And those Gospels were rejected by people who were aware that they weren't written by anyone who walked with Christ.Quote:
and second there are well over 80 other gosples written that tells other stories from supposed eyewitnesses.
The precise criterion used to reject those pseudo-gospels from the authentic gospels was whether they were written by known Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ. Since they could not be proved to be written by known acquaintances of Jesus Christ, they were rejected as worthy to be included in Scripture.
No.Quote:
Are you kidding me?
You have not accepted the evidence which we have found. Besides the Gospels there is the existence of a Church which has stood for 2000 years teaching what Jesus Christ instructed. There is also the empty tomb, the Shroud of Turin, the headpiece which can all be traced to a person crucified exactly as depicted by the four Gospels. There are the writings of other historians, the writings in the pseudo-gospels and other apocrypha and many other sources of contemporaneous information.Quote:
We have dug up Egyptian kings that at one time were thought of as just legend, but we have found no proof at all of a demi God who has once walked the earth.
No it doesn't. Precisely because Zeus' life can't be verified independently nor are there writing which can be verified to be written by his contemporaries nor by eyewitnesses. All evidence points to the fact that Zeus' life is a myth.Quote:
Hell there is more written about Zeus than there is of Jesus, does that make it proof that Zeus was a real being?
Eyewitness testimony is evidence acceptable in a court of law.Quote:
Exactly what is this evidence? Where is this evidence?
Eyewitness testimony which is verified by several witnesses is a very strong form of evidence.
Architectural evidence is very powerful evidence in that regard as well.
Testimony by other contemporaries which are not eyewitnesses but which are familiar with the history is also acceptable.
No it isn't. Your spin on history simply tries to get around the facts. But it is your spin on history which is wrong.Quote:
Again this is false. An example of not passing every test.
Yes, there was. For one, we don't know the precise date of Jesus birth. Nor the precise date of King Herod's death. There is a four year span within which Jesus may have been born and a ten year span within which King Herod may have died.Quote:
The NT claims that at the time Jesus was born,
Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)
Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and
Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)
Well,, there was never a time when these three spans overlapped.
A date of 8 B.C. for Herod's death gives us a date of 43 B.C. for the capture of Jerusalem by Herod. Again, this date makes sense in conjunction with the earlier date for the death of Julius Caesar in 49 B.C.
The Chronology of Herod the great's Reign
1 B. C. Herod died
See table
"When he had done those things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven."
From the above chart and from this statement above by Josephus, it appears clear to me that Herod the Great died in 1 B. C.
The Date of Herod
Therefore determining the date of Herod's death is anything but an exact science. And since there is no definitive proof that St. Luke is wrong, then St. Luke's statement stands.
No. This is the spin you put on history because you wish to disprove something which you refuse to believe. At the very best, you can find no evidence outside of Scripture to disprove Scripture. Therefore you stretch the evidence to prove what you want to prove.Quote:
This is what is learned with history and what would be known by eawoodall if he really knew history as he claims to.
Nothing was overlooked. You have simply clung your hopes to speculative history which proves nothing. The evidence provided by Scripture stands since there is no evidence which disproves it.Quote:
Something else that should be pointed out here is the decree of herod to have all males under 2 or at birth to be killed is a work of fiction as well. No where outside the NT is this story mentioned. Even Josephus Flavius, a renowned Jewish historian, who chronicled events during that very period in history, makes no mention of any such decree by Herod, much less any actual killings.
History records that Herod was hated during his reign, and many far less evil acts that Herod committed were carefully recorded in several historical sources. An act this evil and of this magnitude would never have been left out of any account in which Herod was involved.
If that wasn't convincing enough, According to Luke Herod was dead before Jesus was even born.
So during these "tests" how was this overlooked??
Let me explain further. Your interpretation of history neglects the fact that there were many Herods. Not just one.
Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)
Search wikipedia under the term "King Herod" brings up this information:
* Herod the Great (c. 74-4 BC), king of Judea who reconstructed the Second Temple in Jerusalem and was described in the Gospel of Matthew as ordering the "Massacre of the Innocents"
* Herod Archelaus (23 BC-c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
* Herod Antipas (20 BC-c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, who was described in the New Testament as ordering John the Baptist's death and as mocking Jesus
* Herod Agrippa I (c. 10 BC-AD 44), king of Judea, called "Herod" in the Acts of the Apostles
* Herod Philip I, father of Salome
* Herod Philip II (4 BC-AD 34), tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
* Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41-48)
* Herod Agrippa II (AD 27-100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as "King Agrippa" before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself
Herod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your interpretation of history also neglects the fact that the birth and death of all of those Herods is an estimate. There is no way to ascertain the exact date of birth or death of any of them
Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and
And you also neglect the fact that Quirinus was tetrarch twice:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
As for the killing of the innocents.
Macrobius
In the fourth century, the Roman philosopher Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius gave the following comment in his Saturnalia:
When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, "I'd rather be Herod's sow than Herod’s son." ― Macrobius, The Saturnalia, trans. Percival Davies (New York 1969), 171.
And Josephus gave the direct impression that Herod was certainly capable of such atrocities:
Josephus records several examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power against perceived threats, but suggests that not all such acts were recorded, as he summarizes that Herod "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies."[10] "Such a massacre," Francis Wright Beare observes, "is indeed quite in keeping with the character of Herod, who did not hesitate to put to death any who might be a threat to his power."[11]
Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)
As mentioned above, Macrobius acknowledged that Caesar Augustus himself was appalled at Herod killing his own sons with the innocents.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maira, I'm impressed by the amount of time and research that went into that post!
You must have been typing it while I was posting my question since I didn't get quoted?
Would you have an answer for me as well?
It depends on how you read the Bible. If you prefer to read the Bible as saying the earth is 6000 years old, then you need to prove that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
However, as Catholics we don't believe that faith contradicts reason. We believe the Bible and authentic science (as opposed to speculative science) are true.
Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective
Sincerely,
De Maria
I've been answering this type of question for about ten years. If I still had my old PC, which had all my information archived, I could have posted the information even more quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
However, I've lost several pc's to viruses since then. I no longer try to keep the info on my hard drive since I'm so often disappointed when they crash and burn.
Thanks for the input.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Yes, there are many issues to the age of the earth, first even if we follow creation, we have no idea of how many years Adam was in Eden, one year or 10 million years before the fall.
Also one has to look into if the bibical "day" was a day or a million years, since this was given to man by God himself God would not have been able to fully explain to man how it was all done.
I did not attack, nor did I get defensive. My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science. Buzzman is the one who dragged the big bang theory into the equation and attacked the belief in it. My post essentially repeated what he said from the other side of the argument, and reiterated what I originally instructed him to do (look up definitions).
So please, buzzman, don't patronize me with this "defensive" and "we're just discussing" stuff. Look up the definitions, read about the scientific method, and once you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in common use, maybe we can discuss this intelligently. But if you will never bother to learn about the scientific method there is no way to discuss this with you, because you will always think it is "just a theory". Once you understand these things, you will be able to understand it does not take "faith" to believe in evolution.
And Chuck, just as you don't understand how someone can believe in the scenario you laid out, non-theists don't understand how you believe in the scenario I laid out. What's that? The scenario I laid out isn't detailed and doesn't depict all the subtleties of your faith? Golly... the scenario you laid out doesn't even come close to summing up evolution in a nut shell. Imagine that... Shall I re-phrase what you said from the other side of the argument and see if it makes sense then?
Arguing about the Bible makes as much sense as arguing whether water is wet. It is a no win situation... the believers will die trying to make anyone believe. It's been going on for thousands of years. If you take a news story and let a thousand people read it,, you will get one thousands translations of that story.
I thought all information that contradicted the bible was put on earth by Satan. Like dinosaur bones and stories that tell the mostly The same story as Jesus but have a different character name like Krishna, Moses, Romulus, King Arthur, Perseus, Watu Gunung of Java, Heracles, Mohammad, Beowulf, Buddha, Zeus, Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile, Samson, Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali, Achilles, Odysseus, and Harry Potter all work of the Devil. S
These words are pretty big assumptions without knowing the type of person that I am. By the way that you wrote your words shows how narrow minded you are being by judging my personal character by one comment. Who do you think you are? All of this has been brought upon Man to himself my friend. Its Man's greed in the world that has caused the diseases of today, Greenhouse affect, plastics . Do you not think we can change the molecular structures that were put in place to be natural and clean, modify them (By Man) and accept the domino affect that it can cause damage to in an entire ecosystem? ON the contrary regarding how humans have adapted. It is my point exactly. Point be known, I read the other day that no one in the United states has died of natural causes since the late 1950s. What does that mean? Think about the largest money making companies in the world... Cigarette companies, Oil companies, and Pharmaceuticals. You don't think they manipulate our Governments to assure their stability whether people get hurt or sick? Don't kid yourself. Remember, safety books and Policies are normally written in Blood. If there were no consequences ($$Lawyers$$) then nothing would change. It's the $$ that motivate the changes, not the Companies hearts. You should know by now that justice is directly proportional to your pocket book... So to conclude, its not nature that is not perfect harmony. It is that Man has CREATED DISHARMONY. Consequences to actions my friend. We have created some of it for ourselves. Some of it we are casualties of war . In the end it all comes down to People as a common denominator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
This is a useless discussion that has turned into a childish argument and I'll have no part in it. No one is attacking your view. You need to take a "chill pill".Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Hmmmm.. no proof of evolution,, Tadpoles into Frogs,, Caterpillars into Moths,, hmmmmm
So true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Faith is a powerful motivator!
I have studied about this off and on my entire life, you can't help but be curious about how big the gap is between these two opinions, Evolution or Creation?
From what I have found, there are a substantial group of individuals that put the age of earth between 6331 to 6578 years old, and within this theory, creation taking place between
4323 and 4570 BC.
In this time line, which seems to be very well researched, I found some of the most hard to believe information such as:
Seth was born when his father Adam was 130 years old.
Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old.
It gets a little closer to believable with Enosh a dad at 90, Kenan a dad at 70, Mahalalel
A dad at 65, but then, Jared a dad at 162, or Methuselah a dad at 187? Really?
But even better yet, that Noah was 600 years old when the flood started, and 601 years old when it landed.
These figures were backed up with specific scripture passages in the bible.
I know I won't change anyone's mind who believes in the Bible 100% but it really is hard to accept that men were having babies at 187 years old, or, that a guy could fill an ark and sail for almost a year, at 600 years old?
Now you're just making yourself look foolish... grow up...Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
EXcuse me,, they are examples of biological evolution,, Doubt it? Check your high school biology courses. THis thread has gotten so outragious,,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
No that is not evolution, evolution tadpoles into trees, or perhaps that maple tree turning into a whale??
J. K. Rowling is Satan?? Do her editors know this? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Sheesh...
Actually Jillian, you do seem to get defensive. And your posts do sound like an attack on anyone who disagrees with your opinion. I've been at the receiving end of those attacks all too often.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
You toned down your presentation a bit since PitbullRuby corrected you and others concerning your attitude that everyone must agree with you or they are trolls. But that didn't last very long. You soon returned to your old habits.
Lets go over your post in question:
Calling God an invisible sky wizard. You don't consider that demeaning and insulting to Christians and Jews? Sounds like an attack on all people who believe in God to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jillianleab
Insinuating that God is evil. Again, an attack on Christianity and Judaism.Quote:
the universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement?
Assasinating the Bible. Again an attack on Christians and Jews.Quote:
Good and evil are dictated by the sky wizard and the underground wizard (which the sky wizard allows to exist) and a book full of ambiguity that man edited?
Making fun of our belief in heaven and hell. More insults.Quote:
And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire?
No, you're pretty much insulting everything we believe and calling yourself the victim after we object to your insults.Quote:
I'm not asking you to believe in evolution
But what is your motivation for these insults. The only reason I can possibly see is because we don't agree with you. Because we believe in God and you don't, therefore you will insult everything we believe in an effort to coerce an agreement with you.
No you're not. You're trying to bully us into accepting your beliefs carte blanche. Sorry Toots. It ain't going to happen.Quote:
- I'm asking you look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, and to study and comprehend the scientific method before you go spouting off about deception.
You can only characterize your message that way if you skip you're entire diatribe about the invisible sky wizard.Quote:
My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science.
Well, I believe I've had this discussion with you and I looked up the definitions as they pertain to science and those definitions support Buzzman and my contention that even in the scientific definitions "theories" are not always equivalent to "facts".Quote:
Buzzman is the one who dragged the big bang theory into the equation and attacked the belief in it. My post essentially repeated what he said from the other side of the argument, and reiterated what I originally instructed him to do (look up definitions).
Lets look at one explanation which seems to agree with you:
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
According to the National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note that this explanation never equates theory with fact even in scientific use. The closest it comes is to say:
Now, what would happen if the theory no longer explained natural phenomenon? It would be discarded.Quote:
It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.
Now lets compare different scientific theories. The theory of gravity for instance, could, without my objecting be considered factual. I believe it very well explains and predicts natural phenomenon concerned with the attraction of bodies in space. We can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that things fall when dropped from a height. That is absolute truth.
However, the theory of evolution, although it explains many archaeological discoveries, must in the end be reduced to speculative science. There is no way to prove that dinosaurs came from bugs nor that whales came from dog like creatures. That is simply speculation. And until some sort of absolute proof can be obtained, it remains speculation.
Quote:
So please, buzzman, don't patronize me with this "defensive" and "we're just discussing" stuff. Look up the definitions, read about the scientific method, and once you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in common use, maybe we can discuss this intelligently. But if you will never bother to learn about the scientific method there is no way to discuss this with you, because you will always think it is "just a theory". Once you understand these things, you will be able to understand it does not take "faith" to believe in evolution.
It seems to me you need to study the difference between the idea that theory and fact do not stand necessarily in opposition and the statement that theory is absolute fact every time.
Problem is Jillian that you frequently jump to false conclusions. And when anyone disagrees with your false conclusions, you become defensive. Actually, even when you come up with healthy conclusions, if anyone disagrees, you become defensive and then offensive in that order. But no matter how many times you insinuate illogical ideas such as the one that in science theory is equivalent to fact, that doesn't make them true.Quote:
And Chuck, just as you don't understand how someone can believe in the scenario you laid out, non-theists don't understand how you believe in the scenario I laid out. What's that? The scenario I laid out isn't detailed and doesn't depict all the subtleties of your faith? Golly... the scenario you laid out doesn't even come close to summing up evolution in a nut shell. Imagine that... Shall I re-phrase what you said from the other side of the argument and see if it makes sense then?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Fetuses into humans...Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Steel into autos, oil into gas, money into taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's a little far fetched, even for you. But what about salt water amphibians, into fresh water ones, in say a few million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Nope, those are man made. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I'm sorry you think we're arguing, and I don't think you, or anyone else is attacking my view. I'm trying to encourage you to educate yourself about the scientific method so you will understand why evolution isn't "just a theory". If you have no interest in doing that, this conversation can't go anywhere, because it hinges on it. I've also turned your statements around on you so you can get some perspective from the other side and see that each argument you make can essentially be made in the same way from the other side, so that means (neither) argument "proves" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
But that's fine, conversation over, I have no problem with that.
You are corect evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory, it is more of a fable or idea. But science has accepted it as a unproven theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Sorry to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I find evolution much easier to believe than these statements:
Adam was 130 when Seth was born.
Methuselah was 187 when Lamech was born.
And, a 600 year old man was able to gather 2 of every species of animal, load them all onto an ark, and sail around for almost a year, and then run aground safely.
Side by side, evolution wins in my opinion.
Um... where did I say evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I said the arguments being presented (in this thread) aren't going to "prove" anything, but that's not the same as saying evolution is an unproven theory, or that it's a fable or idea.
Here's the thing (in a nut shell, and rather off topic, sorry); there is evidence for evolution. We have fossil records, we have observed evolution in nature (what many refer to as "micro evolution"), but it is true, we have not observed ape-creature turning into human. That part of the fossil record is still missing, but here's the thing, fossils aren't easy to come by, and they aren't made every time something dies. Just because we don't have that specific fossil, doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. It's sort of like context clues when reading; you look at what you are given, and figure out what it all means. Now, for some people, they require more evidence than what we have - that's fine. If you won't believe in evolution until every last part of the chain is found, I'm OK with that. Some require that sort of proof, some require less. But just because some people require that as proof, doesn't mean it isn't a good theory, or that it's far fetched. Remember, there are a lot of people (I'm one of them) who won't believe in god unless he literally appears before me and says, "Believe, dang it!". That is the proof some require of god, and some require less.
And you could say all the same things about your point of view, and your reason for believing in god; you have evidence, you have observations, etc. That might equate proof to you, but not to someone else. Same thing on both sides.
And please also remember your ideas of biblical literalness, the creation of the universe, life after death, etc. sound just as far fetched to me as my ideas of the big bang theory, evolution, and nothingness sound to you. Our ideas are far fetched to one another, but the great thing is, we don't have to agree, we just have to respect the other's rights to believe what they want.
I love it when two sides of an argument mirror each other... couldn't that just as easily read: "You are correct, the bible is too far fetched to be a good theory. It is more of a fable or idea. But (religion) has accepted it as....fact???"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I tend to agree with some of the earlier posts in this thread. While some events described in the bible can be accounted for by archeological findings and cross references. The way the words were strung together and the message conveyed is completely dependent on the creativity of man and therefore subject to man's fallacy and tendency toward hubris. (How vain to claim that we as mankind are in God's image, talk about a superiority complex!) Fictional stories throughout time have made reference to actual historical events and people to create the idea of realism, to allow the reader to connect. I see the bible in that same aspect, as allegory.
And on the philo-funk-o-sophical side... if the more far fetched events in the bible happened and happened so frequently (when all these folks were supposed to have witnessed all of this) and God made his presence so obvious... why did it stop? You don't see those types of miracles going on today. Why not? (We could really use an abundance of fish and loaves in Darfur right now, we could use it in every town, in every nation :( ). Why all the mystery? Why not send a Bible 2.0 - The Later Years?
Some guy says he's hearing the voice of God now-a-days and he gets pumped full of drugs and put in a padded room or opens up a commune where you should really avoid the Kool-aid.
Why would God, if he is so important to us, let us "forget" him?. not call us once in a while?. take us bowling?. come over for Chinese? Is there a "No Contact" rule that God is imposing on us less-faithful, non-believers for some reason? What made us "break up" with God or vice versa, God break up with us? The "faithful" will no doubt say that He's there, you're just too blind to see... but if "He" is all that is proclaimed, again, why the mystery? Why the test of faith? Do you make your children prove that they love you before you bring them home from the hospital? If the leader of a group or organization turns his/her back on the group/organization/country, no longer hears it's concerns, no longer nurtures the overall good and provides for its well-being... the group eventually turns on that leader or otherwise regroups under alternate "management." Why are so many so surprised when that same concept would also apply so something like religion? When we can't get answers from God, but we can get answers through scientific discoveries, are you surprised when people lean toward the tangible?
Ok, that actually made me laugh out loud! Thanks! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Izannah
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 PM. |