How can you not believe in evolution?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Aeson
If the Bible can't be taken literally, then why should the God in the bible be taken literally?

While some may see this as the start of a slippery slope of some sort, that is, the use of metaphor and allegory in holy scriptures, this is entirely God's intention. God intended us to actively seek him out, rather than just blindy accept whatever dogma is currently trendy.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by monkspider


While some may see this as the start of a slippery slope of some sort, that is, the use of metaphor and allegory in holy scriptures, this is entirely God's intention. God intended us to actively seek him out, rather than just blindy accept whatever dogma is currently trendy.

Well why should anyone embark on such an epic philosophical journey for something with no back up. I mean, I know of Popeye in the same respect, but I don't claim to be trying to find Popeye in my life.

[Zero]

Evolutionist:
Dont waste time trying to impose your beliefs on others. You can't explain someone scientific theory is true when that person doesn't even beleive science as neccesarily the truth.
And Creationist:
Same applies.

[Aeson]

But why search after God if there is no reliable definition of God to search for? How do you know if you ever attain knowlege of God if he only means for us to have metaphor and allegory to compare with? Why search for God (Jehovah) rather than the aforementioned supernatural goat (among countless other things)?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by ayronis



Genesis 1:25-27, Humans are created after the other animals.
Genesis 2:18-19, Out of the ground God forms each animal and brings it before Adam to name.

How could Adam name the animals as they were created if he was created after them?

BTW so you know I believe in theistic creation...God set the universe in motion, however we are the product of evolution, the universe is billions of years old etc....I am a STRONG believer in science.


*Busts out his HEBREW copy of the Torah and translates, as those are both HORRIBLE translations*


Line 25- God made wild beasts of all kinds and of every kind, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. And God saw that this was good.

Line 26-And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.

Line 27-And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Yes, humans are created AFTER animals in order, but not based on them.....just pointing out your fallacy in translation.










Line 18- The lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.

Line 19- and the Lord God CALLED out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name.....

Quote the right scripture if your going to bash your bible......okay? Thanks.

IN FACT if your going to bash your bibal, bash YOUR OWN as the vast, vast majority of Jews will tell you that evolution is fact(even those who are very devout, lebuvich(black hats etc....))-we dont apreciate you taking our texts to preach ignorance.

Originally posted by Aeson
But why search after God if there is no reliable definition of God to search for? How do you know if you ever attain knowlege of God if he only means for us to have metaphor and allegory to compare with? Why search for God (Jehovah) rather than the aforementioned supernatural goat (among countless other things)?

If that was directed at Jews, we dont call our God Jehovah(just wanted to point this out heh). One of the ways we spell God's name with with 2 of the letter "yud" which is the equivlent of Y, but it isnt pronounced phonetically, so this got confused somewhere along the way, till some gentile just said its is pronounced Jehovah.......Yud-Yud is pronounced Adonai, just wanted to point that out!

[Provost Harrison]

Actually that last post could be filled with innuendo. No, I am not looking for a strong sailor type, although I am sure Boris is

[Zero]

Originally posted by Aeson
But why search after God if there is no reliable definition of God to search for? How do you know if you ever attain knowlege of God if he only means for us to have metaphor and allegory to compare with? Why search for God (Jehovah) rather than the aforementioned supernatural goat (among countless other things)?

I'd say the same for science. What if all my efforts of trying to attain the truth thru science is ultimately useless? WHat if the universe is governed by chaos and pure random effects that turns out to be unpredictable?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
While some may see this as the start of a slippery slope of some sort, that is, the use of metaphor and allegory in holy scriptures, this is entirely God's intention. God intended us to actively seek him out, rather than just blindy accept whatever dogma is currently trendy.

How do you know this is God's intention? After all, if the Bible is fallible, then any statement therein saying it is God's intention that it be fallible so people would seek him out is also questionable. It could just be fallible because the people who wrote it didn't know what they were talking about.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Vesayen

*Busts out his HEBREW copy of the Torah and translates, as those are both HORRIBLE translations*

This is one reason why I never beleived BOTH Christians and atheists using too specific words to disprove or prove their point. I doubt that even Original wasn't even written the way the writer would have wanted to. Word isn't a perfect translation. It has its flaws.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Calc II
Dont waste time trying to impose your beliefs on others. You can't explain someone scientific theory is true when that person doesn't even beleive science as neccesarily the truth.

If Creationists were consistent in their rejection of science then I'd not try to "impose" my beliefs on them to the extent that I do. However, Creationists notoriously reject one field of science simply because they don't happen to like it ("I don't like the results that these astronomers are coming up with, because life just isn't worth living if the earth orbits the sun, so I'm going to reject the entire field of astronomy due solely to my arbitrary and completely subjective beliefs"), while accepting another field (or even another aspect of the rejected field) when it proves to be useful/helpful ("Sure I'll use your vaccine, Mr. Salk, just don't try to fill my head with all of your crazy talk about 'biology'"). It's one thing to be a Luddite, but it's another thing entirely to be an inconsistent Luddite.

[Zero]

Originally posted by loinburger


If Creationists were consistent in their rejection of science then I'd not try to "impose" my beliefs on them to the extent that I do. However, Creationists notoriously reject one field of science simply because they don't happen to like it ("I don't like the results that these astronomers are coming up with, because life just isn't worth living if the earth orbits the sun, so I'm going to reject the entire field of astronomy due solely to my arbitrary and completely subjective beliefs"), while accepting another field (or even another aspect of the rejected field) when it proves to be useful/helpful ("Sure I'll use your vaccine, Mr. Salk, just don't try to fill my head with all of your crazy talk about 'biology'"). It's one thing to be a Luddite, but it's another thing entirely to be an inconsistent Luddite.

Science believers dont even agree on everything. Creationists are just the same way, theres some more dogmatic than others, there are some that are more scientist-like... You can't possibly consider a group to think all equally the same way!

Unless if you're talking about an individual.

Also, how do you explain a scientist carrying a rabbit's foot? Is that contradictory too?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Well why should anyone embark on such an epic philosophical journey for something with no back up. I mean, I know of Popeye in the same respect, but I don't claim to be trying to find Popeye in my life.

ProVo H.

One should embark on such a quest because it is the ultimate purpose of our lives here on Earth. To learn of God's greater truths, and eventually become one with God. I'm not sure what you mean by not having any backup, but any attempt to become closer to God will result in backup, guaranteed. God will make sure those who are trying to do the good thing will be well taken care of. So there will be backup, in the sense that God will make sure that you are well secured in your quest.
As far as Popeye goes, he was always one of my top five cartoons. Right up there with Rocky and Bullwinkle.

[Robert]

Numerous Biblical errors and contradictions are evidence enough that the Bible isn't infallible (or even particularly reliable), and that it therefore does not supercede scientific evidence.

that you don't understand the bible doesn't mean it has contradictions.

Take fossil records for example.

you saw it?

That is evidence

why?

and micro-evolution

which is mutation / degeneration with profits.

I am not to knowledable about science but there is certainly a hundred more things to prove evolution.

you're not 'knowledgable' but you're still sure that there are a hundred more things.........
amazing!

How old is the earth? Some creationists say 6,000, some say 10,000 and some say 12,000 years old.

We can't be sure, but that's no problem. Is it?

But selection leads to an evolution in that species in the long term

selection could only lead to evolution if there's something to chose from.

The bible does appear to be fallible, but that's okay.

I think it might be fallable on some minor issues. (dates, names) and there are of course different writers who interpret different things differently. (and in some cases both answers are right.)

The order of Creation is given differently within the first few books of Genesis. They couldn't even start it without a contradiction.

you were there?

Genesis 1:25-27, Humans are created after the other animals.
Genesis 2:18-19, Out of the ground God forms each animal and brings it before Adam to name.

How could Adam name the animals as they were created if he was created after them?

another example of a silly contradiction.

Science IS always questioned, that's what makes it science.

the cool thing is that if it's questioned by alike-thinkers (atheists, evolutionists) it's ok.
If it's questoined by a creationist, the person who asks is a fool thus his question is not valid.

Creationists hold to a dogma they view as unquestionable because they take on faith it is God's doing, and questioning God is not allowed. That's why it's not science.

evolution is unquestionable in they eyes of most of you guys here. Again: you're not different, you're all fanatics!

However, Creationism doesn't stand up under scientific observation. Evolution, so far, has. Ergo it is a scientifically valid theory, Creationism is not.

I disagree with it, thus it's not a valid theory
Quiet a simplistic view you hold friend Boris!

There are several scientific creationists who do scientific research and have a scientific grade.

Evolution also has been updated numerous times (based on new findings) since its discovery by Charles Darwin.

Evolution as been teached by Darwin is a complete different theory than teached in modern times. The scientists only stucked to the 'all from one' part.

And in 300 years much of the current science will be concidered to be silly and backwardds.

I think ur underestimating the amount of time you have stated over there....

circular reasoning,
- evolution needs much time
- the universe must be veeeeeeeery old
- fossils we found must be veeeeery old as well
- these old fossils we found show that evolution took muuuuuuuch time

some scientists play with time as a child plays with water.
Time gives opportunities indeed. But time comes with problems as well.
Many problems!
BUt those problems are underestimated.

Do you have any idea of the temporal difference between even a hundred years and a BILLION years? It's an enormous difference.

Do you know what disasters can happen in a billion years?

Creationists are the one saying their theory should be taught as science

I'm not sure if I'm a creatoinist, but I think it should not be teached as science.

FNBrown: Any Google search for biblical contradictions will provide you with a whole slew of them. Specifically, I ran a search for bible + contradictions -- here are some excerpts from the first site that came up...

*gasp*

Are we saved through works?

No, through faith, but something that does not have works can't be faith. (short said)

Does God change his mind?

read further than the dictionairy words.

Does God tempt people?

there are two ways to temp.
temp people by pressure (do they still follow God during pressure)
and temping people to sin.

God does not do the latter.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Aeson
But why search after God if there is no reliable definition of God to search for? How do you know if you ever attain knowlege of God if he only means for us to have metaphor and allegory to compare with? Why search for God (Jehovah) rather than the aforementioned supernatural goat (among countless other things)?

God will always make sure he is ultimately well defined. Of course, the Bible and various other holy scriptures provide a good starting point for understanding him. In fact, you can find the basics of understanding God in these books. But the ultimate understanding of God comes from within. The fact that metaphor and so forth is used in God's holy scriptures is irrelevent, because God will always make clear that which is needed to be made more clear.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Calc II
I'd say the same for science. What if all my efforts of trying to attain the truth thru science is ultimately useless? WHat if the universe is governed by chaos and pure random effects that turns out to be unpredictable?

Science is a tool. For example: We can measure temperature, observe how that temperature effects different items, and thus know how to cook and/or not burn ourselves. Very useful and straightforward. Reproducible, and the results are tangible.

On the other hand, what in the Bible can we test, reproduce for ourselves?