Now it is time for the controversy. I'm a very critical, very
methodical thinker. With this being said, I've gotten into many
conversations/debates/arugments about Creation vs. Evolution. I
believe in aspects of both.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation, but I do believe that God
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Either or
Either or
Lennox wrote: Now it is time for the controversy. I'm a very critical, very
methodical thinker. With this being said, I've gotten into many
conversations/debates/arugments about Creation vs. Evolution. I
believe in aspects of both.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation, but I do believe that God
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Hi lennox, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you believe aspects of both evolution theory and creationism, I think if you look at both philosophies you will see that they are mutually exclusive. I am also unsure of what you mean by there being too much evidence for both theories, that seems to be an oxymoron at best? In terms of the debate on this one, I would say that all hard material evidence supports the hypothesis that the planet is about 5 billion years old and that life developed from about 4.5 billion years ago. I havn't seen any compelling physical evidence that this is not the case. I suppose creationism can be argued from a theological veiwpoint, but apart from scriptures and a religious belief in their literal truth I don't see any scientific case whatsoever for the planet being 6,000 years old and it all being created as it is now. I know people will argue that there is "proof", but I don't see that as being credible.
In terms of where does that leave room for god of course it leaves all the room in the universe for god, just because the scientific method can be used to make a compelling physical case for the universe being extremely old and life adapting over millions of differentiation and evolution into us and everything else alive on earth, thats not an explanation of "why" this should be so.
methodical thinker. With this being said, I've gotten into many
conversations/debates/arugments about Creation vs. Evolution. I
believe in aspects of both.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation, but I do believe that God
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Hi lennox, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you believe aspects of both evolution theory and creationism, I think if you look at both philosophies you will see that they are mutually exclusive. I am also unsure of what you mean by there being too much evidence for both theories, that seems to be an oxymoron at best? In terms of the debate on this one, I would say that all hard material evidence supports the hypothesis that the planet is about 5 billion years old and that life developed from about 4.5 billion years ago. I havn't seen any compelling physical evidence that this is not the case. I suppose creationism can be argued from a theological veiwpoint, but apart from scriptures and a religious belief in their literal truth I don't see any scientific case whatsoever for the planet being 6,000 years old and it all being created as it is now. I know people will argue that there is "proof", but I don't see that as being credible.
In terms of where does that leave room for god of course it leaves all the room in the universe for god, just because the scientific method can be used to make a compelling physical case for the universe being extremely old and life adapting over millions of differentiation and evolution into us and everything else alive on earth, thats not an explanation of "why" this should be so.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Supersilly@rse
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:00 am
Either or
Lennox wrote: Now it is time for the controversy. I'm a very critical, very
methodical thinker. With this being said, I've gotten into many
conversations/debates/arugments about Creation vs. Evolution. I
believe in aspects of both.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation, but I do believe that God
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Ooooh! lovely! *rubs hands in glee*
Now - creationism? wha? sorry? *wipes tear* really???
The whole Adam and Eve thing? Woman f*cking it up for mankind? A *serpant*? How very symbolic!
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a God, but I just think that the whole 'Creation' think was created by certain folks as a not so subtle way to teach a moral social lesson.......
I had the whold Darwinian "eye nightmare" conversation with my BF only last week, and I actually managed to create a very hypothetical way in which the eye could develop from single cell, heat/ light sensitive etc, to a fully functioning human eye...
he wasn't convinced, but it was a starting point! I think if I was more intelligent then I'd have it pinned for sure!
methodical thinker. With this being said, I've gotten into many
conversations/debates/arugments about Creation vs. Evolution. I
believe in aspects of both.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation, but I do believe that God
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Ooooh! lovely! *rubs hands in glee*
Now - creationism? wha? sorry? *wipes tear* really???
The whole Adam and Eve thing? Woman f*cking it up for mankind? A *serpant*? How very symbolic!
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a God, but I just think that the whole 'Creation' think was created by certain folks as a not so subtle way to teach a moral social lesson.......
I had the whold Darwinian "eye nightmare" conversation with my BF only last week, and I actually managed to create a very hypothetical way in which the eye could develop from single cell, heat/ light sensitive etc, to a fully functioning human eye...
he wasn't convinced, but it was a starting point! I think if I was more intelligent then I'd have it pinned for sure!
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Either or
Lennox wrote: I don't believe in spontaneous generation, but I do believe that God
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Consider what would happen if our idea of time was "warped", i.e. wrong with
regards what happened in ancient texts. How long was Methuselah supposed
to have lived? Noah, even? What if your religion doesn't encompass worthies
such as Adam & Eve?
set a series of events in motion. I believe there's too much
evidence to support both theories. If you have a skeleton that's
400,000 years old, but Adam and Eve were around at a max of 4,000
years ago then what? Why don't no one has found any skeletons of
dinosaurs and humans? Why is that evolutionary steps can be followed
from Austrailopithicus on upto Homo Sapian? Now that I think about
it, if there is no such thing then would everyone still be from
Africa? I mean because technically that means that little million
year old skeleton of "Lucy" would have to be an ancestor of humans,
right?
Some that most scientists are Atheist based on what they've learned
their entire life. My question today is can you be a scientific man
but also a religious one? If that's the case either everything I've
been taught in regards to science is wrong and most of the knowledge
I possess is useless or I'm praying for no reason. I've been told it
has to be either or.
Consider what would happen if our idea of time was "warped", i.e. wrong with
regards what happened in ancient texts. How long was Methuselah supposed
to have lived? Noah, even? What if your religion doesn't encompass worthies
such as Adam & Eve?
Either or
Supersilly@rse wrote: Ooooh! lovely! *rubs hands in glee*
Now - creationism? wha? sorry? *wipes tear* really???
The whole Adam and Eve thing? Woman f*cking it up for mankind? A *serpant*? How very symbolic!
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a God, but I just think that the whole 'Creation' think was created by certain folks as a not so subtle way to teach a moral social lesson.......
I had the whold Darwinian "eye nightmare" conversation with my BF only last week, and I actually managed to create a very hypothetical way in which the eye could develop from single cell, heat/ light sensitive etc, to a fully functioning human eye...
he wasn't convinced, but it was a starting point! I think if I was more intelligent then I'd have it pinned for sure!
No doubt it could develop, under the right cricumstances. Those have to be created to achieve proper results. The theory that scientists can create something from nothing is erroneous, since it takes the scientists, plus a plethora of paraphernalia to make it. Chances are that chances are not very good for chances to be something other than chances. We reason from the understandings we have created, which are agreed upon by a majority. We are highly limited in those understandings, finite if you wish.
Good luck with your eye! :yh_wink
Now - creationism? wha? sorry? *wipes tear* really???
The whole Adam and Eve thing? Woman f*cking it up for mankind? A *serpant*? How very symbolic!
I'm not saying that I don't believe in a God, but I just think that the whole 'Creation' think was created by certain folks as a not so subtle way to teach a moral social lesson.......
I had the whold Darwinian "eye nightmare" conversation with my BF only last week, and I actually managed to create a very hypothetical way in which the eye could develop from single cell, heat/ light sensitive etc, to a fully functioning human eye...
he wasn't convinced, but it was a starting point! I think if I was more intelligent then I'd have it pinned for sure!
No doubt it could develop, under the right cricumstances. Those have to be created to achieve proper results. The theory that scientists can create something from nothing is erroneous, since it takes the scientists, plus a plethora of paraphernalia to make it. Chances are that chances are not very good for chances to be something other than chances. We reason from the understandings we have created, which are agreed upon by a majority. We are highly limited in those understandings, finite if you wish.
Good luck with your eye! :yh_wink
Either or
Diuretic wrote: It's strange how life on Earth reflects the conditions that facilitate life on Earth :-3
Rather - if the conditions on Earth did not facilitate life, we would not be discussing it, we would be somwhere else where the conditions *did* facilitate life. Life on Earth has evolved to best fit the conditions found. Not strange at all.
Rather - if the conditions on Earth did not facilitate life, we would not be discussing it, we would be somwhere else where the conditions *did* facilitate life. Life on Earth has evolved to best fit the conditions found. Not strange at all.
Either or
I say that I believe in both because I feel like God set for a series of events. I'm not really one that believes that Adam and Eve are my great-great-great-great-great-and so on grandparents. I believe that the Earth is approximately 5 billion years old. There are too many religions to say that just one story of creation is proper without any support. I believe in God because I was taught to believe in God. I was also taught about evolution. I guess I look to God as far as "The Architect" because I need to for my own sanity. I don't know who or what sparked The Big Bang. Like I said, I don't believe in spontaneous generation so I don't know where everything came from.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Either or
Lennox wrote: Like I said, I don't believe in spontaneous generation so I don't know where everything came from.
I'm not sure where it's going. Is the universe still supposed to be expanding
at the speed of light, or something?
I'm not sure where it's going. Is the universe still supposed to be expanding
at the speed of light, or something?
Either or
Diuretic wrote: It's strange how life on Earth reflects the conditions that facilitate life on Earth :-3
Not really, if you consider there are seven other planets in the solar system that do not facilitate life, and unsurprisingly there is no life on them. Though maybe (just maybe) their is microbial life on Mars, and as for Europa (one of Jupiter's moons) who knows? Also I remind you that there are trillions upon trillions of other stars exactly like the sun in the universe, so the fact that there is at least one planet with the environment of earth (based on laws of physics and chemistry) is not surprising. What is surprising is that there are creatures on this planet that can comprehend this, but again that doesn't necessarily mean their is something out of the ordinary about that, as we don't know yet whether life is common on other worlds, (yet). Looking at this biologically it becomes obvious pretty quickly that we are perfectly adapted to the conditions of our environment, not the other way around, after all the planets' been here a lot longer than we have and seemed perfectly fine without having self-absorbed human beings living on it for 4,999,900,000 years previously, though I don't see how human beings could have evolved into what they are without the precise environment that the earth provides them.
Again, does this proove or disprove the existence of a "God"?, of course not, it just means that there is a lot more to the universe and reality than just one intelligent speicies existing on one planet for 100,000 years orbiting one star in a galaxy of billions of similar stars, in a universe of billions of similar galaxies.
Hmmmn?
Not really, if you consider there are seven other planets in the solar system that do not facilitate life, and unsurprisingly there is no life on them. Though maybe (just maybe) their is microbial life on Mars, and as for Europa (one of Jupiter's moons) who knows? Also I remind you that there are trillions upon trillions of other stars exactly like the sun in the universe, so the fact that there is at least one planet with the environment of earth (based on laws of physics and chemistry) is not surprising. What is surprising is that there are creatures on this planet that can comprehend this, but again that doesn't necessarily mean their is something out of the ordinary about that, as we don't know yet whether life is common on other worlds, (yet). Looking at this biologically it becomes obvious pretty quickly that we are perfectly adapted to the conditions of our environment, not the other way around, after all the planets' been here a lot longer than we have and seemed perfectly fine without having self-absorbed human beings living on it for 4,999,900,000 years previously, though I don't see how human beings could have evolved into what they are without the precise environment that the earth provides them.
Again, does this proove or disprove the existence of a "God"?, of course not, it just means that there is a lot more to the universe and reality than just one intelligent speicies existing on one planet for 100,000 years orbiting one star in a galaxy of billions of similar stars, in a universe of billions of similar galaxies.
Hmmmn?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Either or
I have absolutely no problem with both science and religion. Science is one way of looking at life and reality and religion is another way. Science deals with the physical and religion the spiritual.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, fiction, short story, parables theology, philosophy and even a few kernels of histroy spread throughout. Something does not have to be historically accurate to teach profound truths. Jesus being the good teacher was able to create parables or borrow them to suit the lessons he was trying to teach.
The creation story in Genesis is a myth or parable if you like. It was borrowed from the Mesopotamians and a very similar story can be found in the epic of Gilgamesh, expecially concerning the Noah story which itself is a legend.
The Bible was written in an ancient style called midrash which was both a method of writing and interpreting. So a good example is the birth story of Jesus. After having decided based on the profound experiences of this man Jesus they came to the conclusion that he was indeed the Messiah. Thus they went to the OT to find the passages that seemed to refer to his coming and wrote the story up as the OT indicated. The OT was used to interpret the birth, life and death of Jesus. He was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth but since the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem that is where the story takes us.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, fiction, short story, parables theology, philosophy and even a few kernels of histroy spread throughout. Something does not have to be historically accurate to teach profound truths. Jesus being the good teacher was able to create parables or borrow them to suit the lessons he was trying to teach.
The creation story in Genesis is a myth or parable if you like. It was borrowed from the Mesopotamians and a very similar story can be found in the epic of Gilgamesh, expecially concerning the Noah story which itself is a legend.
The Bible was written in an ancient style called midrash which was both a method of writing and interpreting. So a good example is the birth story of Jesus. After having decided based on the profound experiences of this man Jesus they came to the conclusion that he was indeed the Messiah. Thus they went to the OT to find the passages that seemed to refer to his coming and wrote the story up as the OT indicated. The OT was used to interpret the birth, life and death of Jesus. He was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth but since the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem that is where the story takes us.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Either or
Ted wrote: I have absolutely no problem with both science and religion. Science is one way of looking at life and reality and religion is another way. Science deals with the physical and religion the spiritual.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, fiction, short story, parables theology, philosophy and even a few kernels of histroy spread throughout. Something does not have to be historically accurate to teach profound truths. Jesus being the good teacher was able to create parables or borrow them to suit the lessons he was trying to teach.
The creation story in Genesis is a myth or parable if you like. It was borrowed from the Mesopotamians and a very similar story can be found in the epic of Gilgamesh, expecially concerning the Noah story which itself is a legend.
The Bible was written in an ancient style called midrash which was both a method of writing and interpreting. So a good example is the birth story of Jesus. After having decided based on the profound experiences of this man Jesus they came to the conclusion that he was indeed the Messiah. Thus they went to the OT to find the passages that seemed to refer to his coming and wrote the story up as the OT indicated. The OT was used to interpret the birth, life and death of Jesus. He was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth but since the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem that is where the story takes us.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm particularly fond of the following injunction:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you." - Job 12:7-8
Not science, but an invitation to science.
The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, poetry, fiction, short story, parables theology, philosophy and even a few kernels of histroy spread throughout. Something does not have to be historically accurate to teach profound truths. Jesus being the good teacher was able to create parables or borrow them to suit the lessons he was trying to teach.
The creation story in Genesis is a myth or parable if you like. It was borrowed from the Mesopotamians and a very similar story can be found in the epic of Gilgamesh, expecially concerning the Noah story which itself is a legend.
The Bible was written in an ancient style called midrash which was both a method of writing and interpreting. So a good example is the birth story of Jesus. After having decided based on the profound experiences of this man Jesus they came to the conclusion that he was indeed the Messiah. Thus they went to the OT to find the passages that seemed to refer to his coming and wrote the story up as the OT indicated. The OT was used to interpret the birth, life and death of Jesus. He was not born in Bethlehem but in Nazareth but since the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem that is where the story takes us.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm particularly fond of the following injunction:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you." - Job 12:7-8
Not science, but an invitation to science.
Either or
Diuretic wrote: I suppose we're just lucky
Not at all - the point is that, if it were not us here, it would be LGMs somewhere else thinking exactly the same thing.
Not at all - the point is that, if it were not us here, it would be LGMs somewhere else thinking exactly the same thing.