Quoted: Quoted: Please see this site regarding your rabbits chewing cud issue.  http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html That whole argument boils down to an error on the part of the Jewish writer who was not a biologist.   The problem is its supposed to be inerrant and the word of God.  Does God not know the difference? Its a mistake that makes perfect sense if the writer had a say in the editoral process.   In which case the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant. It doesn't matter how the error showed up, if there is an error in the Bible then it is not inerrant.

Did you read the article, sounds like an error in translation from the original language.  Also, the Bible is God inspired, not authored.

Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_

Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors.

I think what it boils down to, Trojianii, is that facts are sacred to some. Beliefs that are contrary to the laws of physics need to be backed up with some evidence in order to satisfy logic and reason.

Quoted: I think what it boils down to, Trojianii, is that facts are sacred to some. Beliefs that are contrary to the laws of physics need to be backed up with some evidence in order to satisfy logic and reason.

Well, as the courts show, laws are meant to be changed.  



http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/lightspeed.htm

Danish physicists performed an experiment where they slowed light down to only 38 miles per hour (about 57 km/hr) by sending a beam through a molecule made of sodium atoms cooled to near absolute zero (- 273 degrees C or - 460 degrees F). They achieved this low temperature by using lasers to slow down the atoms, through a special method used in quantum mechanics called the Bose-Einstein condensate. (Explanation of this goes away beyond the scope of this course).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors.

Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic.

Quoted: Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic.

I didn't even know there were pictures!

Quoted: Quoted: I think what it boils down to, Trojianii, is that facts are sacred to some. Beliefs that are contrary to the laws of physics need to be backed up with some evidence in order to satisfy logic and reason. Well, as the courts show, laws are meant to be changed.   http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/lightspeed.htm Danish physicists performed an experiment where they slowed light down to only 38 miles per hour (about 57 km/hr) by sending a beam through a molecule made of sodium atoms cooled to near absolute zero (- 273 degrees C or - 460 degrees F). They achieved this low temperature by using lasers to slow down the atoms, through a special method used in quantum mechanics called the Bose-Einstein condensate. (Explanation of this goes away beyond the scope of this course).

nothing has changed there, the speed of light alters based on the medium it is in

Does this surprise you?

And the experiment would be observable and repeatable.

If it flunks peer review, other scientists will call BS, and science takes a step forward, not backwards.

Science gathers facts without preconcieved notions, and then tries to interpret them.

They don't start with a belief, and then reject any facts that don't fit their belief.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Please see this site regarding your rabbits chewing cud issue.  http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html That whole argument boils down to an error on the part of the Jewish writer who was not a biologist.   The problem is its supposed to be inerrant and the word of God.  Does God not know the difference? Its a mistake that makes perfect sense if the writer had a say in the editoral process.   In which case the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant. It doesn't matter how the error showed up, if there is an error in the Bible then it is not inerrant. Did you read the article, sounds like an error in translation from the original language.  Also, the Bible is God inspired, not authored.

Yes I did, and the author even admits that is unlikely and falls back on the error of the person making the claim.  

Errors happen even if someone is inspired.  The Bible is a work of man, and like any such work has errors.   If your faith is built on an inerrant Bible, then you are building your house on sand.

If you believe the Bible is inspired and may contain some errors due to human ignorance, then there is no problem.

Quoted: If you read Genesis literally then light was created on the first day (from what we have no idea, because the sun was not created until the 3rd day) Since the sun wasn't created until day 3, then we have 2 days where our current understanding of what a day is does not apply.   The greater light (aka the sun) was not created until day 3, any other reading of the Bible is non-literal. There is no such thing as a true Biblical literalist, every one of them twists the words when the meaning is illogical or uncomfortable to their worldview.  Which is exactly what they accuse non-literalists of.

How did God have an evening and moring in the first day without the sun rising and setting?  The meaning of day doesn't change through the bible.  Are you telling me four of the six days are different in Exodus 20:11???

Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

No, a day is literally a day from Gen to Rev.

Shok

Quoted: Quoted: If you read Genesis literally then light was created on the first day (from what we have no idea, because the sun was not created until the 3rd day) Since the sun wasn't created until day 3, then we have 2 days where our current understanding of what a day is does not apply.   The greater light (aka the sun) was not created until day 3, any other reading of the Bible is non-literal. There is no such thing as a true Biblical literalist, every one of them twists the words when the meaning is illogical or uncomfortable to their worldview.  Which is exactly what they accuse non-literalists of. How did God have an evening and moring in the first day without the sun rising and setting?  The meaning of day doesn't change through the bible.  Are you telling me four of the six days are different in Exodus 20:11??? Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. No, a day is literally a day from Gen to Rev. Shok

and that is fine to believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a literal interpretation.

In this instance, you are not a Biblical literalist.

I'm not going to debate the truth of your belief, I'm simply stating a simple fact that your interpretation of scripture in this instance is not literal.

A literal interpretation requires that God created light on the first day and the sun and moon on the third day.  If God is God, surely he has the power to create light without a light source?   Are you saying God couldn't have done it as the Bible says?



 

Quoted: and that is fine to believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a literal interpretation. In this instance, you are not a Biblical literalist. I'm not going to debate the truth of your belief, I'm simply stating a simple fact that your interpretation of scripture in this instance is not literal. A literal interpretation requires that God created light on the first day and the sun and moon on the third day.  If God is God, surely he has the power to create light without a light source?   Are you saying God couldn't have done it as the Bible says?

God could have done an infinite number of things, He certainly is capable of anything, but He didn't.  I acknowledge his infinte wisdom and power but his works are clearly laid out in the Bible.  If you took the Bible literally you'd agree that you can't have evening and morning without a light source (aka the sun).  I also showed the definition and meaning of day doesn't change in the bible. We're starting to debate in circles now.

God bless,

Shok

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors. Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic.

"pseudepigraphic"?  Not in my dictionary.  Are you trying to say they are "fake" authors?

Quoted: And the experiment would be observable and repeatable. If it flunks peer review, other scientists will call BS, and science takes a step forward, not backwards. Science gathers facts without preconcieved notions, and then tries to interpret them. They don't start with a belief, and then reject any facts that don't fit their belief.

Like the "Theory" of evolution that is a hypothesis that they are trying (still) to prove.  It was not facts that were interpreted.

Quoted: Quoted: And the experiment would be observable and repeatable. If it flunks peer review, other scientists will call BS, and science takes a step forward, not backwards. Science gathers facts without preconcieved notions, and then tries to interpret them. They don't start with a belief, and then reject any facts that don't fit their belief. Like the "Theory" of evolution that is a hypothesis that they are trying (still) to prove.  It was not facts that were interpreted.

First, I think you're misunderstanding the word "theory" as it applies here. Consider the "theory" of gravity, for example.

There are missing pieces to the evolution puzzle of course, but it's well-established, and there are more and more pieces being found all the time. i.e., the evidence is growing stronger, not weaker. There are often mistaken hypothesis. Those mistakes are advances in our knowledge, as they eliminate false leads.

The history of religion, on the other hand, is the history of a retreat in the face of knowledge. I'm not picking on your specific religion, this is true of any doctrine based on faith that doesn't jibe with facts.

Quoted: Quoted: and that is fine to believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a literal interpretation. In this instance, you are not a Biblical literalist. I'm not going to debate the truth of your belief, I'm simply stating a simple fact that your interpretation of scripture in this instance is not literal. A literal interpretation requires that God created light on the first day and the sun and moon on the third day.  If God is God, surely he has the power to create light without a light source?   Are you saying God couldn't have done it as the Bible says? God could have done an infinite number of things, He certainly is capable of anything, but He didn't.  I acknowledge his infinte wisdom and power but his works are clearly laid out in the Bible.  If you took the Bible literally you'd agree that you can't have evening and morning without a light source (aka the sun).  I also showed the definition and meaning of day doesn't change in the bible. We're starting to debate in circles now. God bless, Shok

and I showed you that the Bible  says he created light on the first day and the sun on the 3rd day.

You are the one who is twisting it to change the meaning.   Literally it says light on the first day, sun on the 3rd day.   That is what it says.  

Anything else is a a non-literal interpretation.

You are the one who is arguing that the book is inerrant and then saying that it doesn't say what is says.

I'm not making the argument that what is says is true or false.  Thats a matter of faith.   I am saying that is says light on day one and sun on day three.   The only way to deny that is  to say that "the greater light" is not, in fact, the sun.   If you agree "the greater light" is the sun, then you agree that the Bible says it was created on day 3.  That is the only interpretation that is literal.  Any other interpretation is non-literal.  

You choose to take a non-literal interpretation.  I'm not saying its right or wrong, but it is non-literal.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors. Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic. "pseudepigraphic"?  Not in my dictionary.  Are you trying to say they are "fake" authors?

I'm saying that many of the documents are written by unknown authors in the name of famous prophets and kings (and later, disciples).



p.s. this is what anyone with a degree in theology learns when they study the subject.  Its not a radical theory I just pulled out of the blue.   Its the historical view for much of the Old and New Testament.    If you want to learn more about the historical analysis and which books are viewed as written pseudepigraphically, then a broad overview is available HERE

Quoted: Quoted: and that is fine to believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a literal interpretation. In this instance, you are not a Biblical literalist. I'm not going to debate the truth of your belief, I'm simply stating a simple fact that your interpretation of scripture in this instance is not literal. A literal interpretation requires that God created light on the first day and the sun and moon on the third day.  If God is God, surely he has the power to create light without a light source?   Are you saying God couldn't have done it as the Bible says? God could have done an infinite number of things, He certainly is capable of anything, but He didn't.  I acknowledge his infinte wisdom and power but his works are clearly laid out in the Bible.  If you took the Bible literally you'd agree that you can't have evening and morning without a light source (aka the sun).  I also showed the definition and meaning of day doesn't change in the bible. We're starting to debate in circles now. God bless, Shok

According to Genesis, light comes from a different source (at least originally).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And the experiment would be observable and repeatable. If it flunks peer review, other scientists will call BS, and science takes a step forward, not backwards. Science gathers facts without preconcieved notions, and then tries to interpret them. They don't start with a belief, and then reject any facts that don't fit their belief. Like the "Theory" of evolution that is a hypothesis that they are trying (still) to prove.  It was not facts that were interpreted. First, I think you're misunderstanding the word "theory" as it applies here. Consider the "theory" of gravity, for example. There are missing pieces to the evolution puzzle of course, but it's well-established, and there are more and more pieces being found all the time. i.e., the evidence is growing stronger, not weaker. There are often mistaken hypothesis. Those mistakes are advances in our knowledge, as they eliminate false leads. The history of religion, on the other hand, is the history of a retreat in the face of knowledge. I'm not picking on your specific religion, this is true of any doctrine based on faith that doesn't jibe with facts.

You said "Science gathers facts without preconcieved notions, and then tries to interpret them.", which is not what the theory of evolution does (and until it is proven, still a theory).

Have you accepted the theory of gravity yet?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: and that is fine to believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a literal interpretation. In this instance, you are not a Biblical literalist. I'm not going to debate the truth of your belief, I'm simply stating a simple fact that your interpretation of scripture in this instance is not literal. A literal interpretation requires that God created light on the first day and the sun and moon on the third day.  If God is God, surely he has the power to create light without a light source?   Are you saying God couldn't have done it as the Bible says? God could have done an infinite number of things, He certainly is capable of anything, but He didn't.  I acknowledge his infinte wisdom and power but his works are clearly laid out in the Bible.  If you took the Bible literally you'd agree that you can't have evening and morning without a light source (aka the sun).  I also showed the definition and meaning of day doesn't change in the bible. We're starting to debate in circles now. God bless, Shok According to Genesis, light comes from a different source (at least originally).

Yup

Quoted: Have you accepted the theory of gravity yet?

Why should we, its not proven 100%

I lean towards the Intelligen Falling Down theory myself

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors. Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic. "pseudepigraphic"?  Not in my dictionary.  Are you trying to say they are "fake" authors? I'm saying that many of the documents are written by unknown authors in the name of famous prophets and kings (and later, disciples). p.s. this is what anyone with a degree in theology learns when they study the subject.  Its not a radical theory I just pulled out of the blue.   Its the historical view for much of the Old and New Testament.    If you want to learn more about the historical analysis and which books are viewed as written pseudepigraphically, then a broad overview is available HERE

"the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" ?  Do you have a degree in theology (no, I don't)?  Sounds like you are not a beiever in God but a believer in Science (Man).

Quoted: Have you accepted the theory of gravity yet?

I beleive God created gravity and can change it at will if he desires.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors. Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic. "pseudepigraphic"?  Not in my dictionary.  Are you trying to say they are "fake" authors? I'm saying that many of the documents are written by unknown authors in the name of famous prophets and kings (and later, disciples). p.s. this is what anyone with a degree in theology learns when they study the subject.  Its not a radical theory I just pulled out of the blue.   Its the historical view for much of the Old and New Testament.    If you want to learn more about the historical analysis and which books are viewed as written pseudepigraphically, then a broad overview is available HERE "the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" ?  Do you have a degree in theology (no, I don't)?  Sounds like you are not a beiever in God but a believer in Science (Man).

It was a link to a good summary of the historical view.   My point was not that I have a degree in theology, but that its what is taught in seminary schools across the world.    Its a good introduction to the historical view of the Bible and has a bibliography to in depth books and articles on the subject.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors. Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic. "pseudepigraphic"?  Not in my dictionary.  Are you trying to say they are "fake" authors? I'm saying that many of the documents are written by unknown authors in the name of famous prophets and kings (and later, disciples). p.s. this is what anyone with a degree in theology learns when they study the subject.  Its not a radical theory I just pulled out of the blue.   Its the historical view for much of the Old and New Testament.    If you want to learn more about the historical analysis and which books are viewed as written pseudepigraphically, then a broad overview is available HERE "the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" ?  Do you have a degree in theology (no, I don't)?  Sounds like you are not a beiever in God but a believer in Science (Man). It was a link to a good summary of the historical view.   My point was not that I have a degree in theology, but that its what is taught in seminary schools across the world.    Its a good introduction to the historical view of the Bible and has a bibliography to in depth books and articles on the subject.

That is why you need to be careful on the school you choose, there are a lot of schools teaching "theology", lots of liberalism creeping into some schools.

Quoted: That is why you need to be careful on the school you choose, there are a lot of schools teaching "theology", lots of liberalism creeping into some schools.

Yes, in the same way that liberalism crept into the classrooms during the Renaissance....

Liberalism has nothing to do with the historical analysis of the Bible.   It has been going on for hundreds of years.

Quoted: Quoted: That is why you need to be careful on the school you choose, there are a lot of schools teaching "theology", lots of liberalism creeping into some schools. Yes, in the same way that liberalism crept into the classrooms during the Renaissance.... Liberalism has nothing to do with the historical analysis of the Bible.   It has been going on for hundreds of years.

Historical analysis, what is not historical about the bible? And for just as long, liberalism has been attempting to corrupt Cristianity.

Quoted: It was a link to a good summary of the historical view.   My point was not that I have a degree in theology, but that its what is taught in seminary schools across the world.    Its a good introduction to the historical view of the Bible and has a bibliography to in depth books and articles on the subject.

Do you have proof to back up this statement-what schools??

.

Quoted: Quoted: It was a link to a good summary of the historical view.   My point was not that I have a degree in theology, but that its what is taught in seminary schools across the world.    Its a good introduction to the historical view of the Bible and has a bibliography to in depth books and articles on the subject. Do you have proof to back up this statement-what schools??

sorry just saw this thanks to T's bump

What proof would you accept?   It might be easier to ask someone to show us a divinity school or seminary that does not do historical analysis of the text involved.   I don't personally know of any   divinity schools  or seminaries that do not do so.  

If you want to bring in paper mills that just award degrees for no effort then I am sure you could find some quite easily.  Of course they don't require much other than cash anyway ;p

I know that Vanderbuilt, Princeton,  and JTS all require classwork that includes historical and textual analysis of religous texts.

Back to the original question that started all this:

The "Science of Origins" is not science at all.  Experiments must be repeatable.  The conditions during the origin of the universe cannot be repeated, therefore experiments cannot be used to validate what happened billions of years ago, or thousands of years ago-depending on what you "believe" to be true.  We are left with unproveable theories based on the evidence left behind.

Evolution and Creationism cannot both be true.  Either one is true, or they are both false.  "ID" or "intelligent design"is an effort to meld two opposing idealogies.  For example, if evolution is true, then then death existed before Adam and Eve sinned.  The bible clearly states that death did not enter creation until sin.  The bible also states that animals were created according to their own "kind".  If this is true, then animal "kinds" do not have common ancestors as evolution claims.  Claiming that God directed the evolution of species goes against modern science which does not aknowledge the existence of God-and also against bible principles of God being intimately involved in creation and that man is a special creation different from the animals.  There is no way to logically reconcile the two theories.

As for what is used as "evidence" for evolution, I cannot come to the reasonable conclusion that evolution is true.  There are NO transitional forms found in the fossil record.  Every proposed missing link put forth has either been debunked as a fraud, or clearly classified as a pre-existing form.  If evolution is true, then there should be numerous trasitional forms exhibiting both characteristics of the previous form and the later form.  Darwin himself dispaired at the lack of transitional evidence in the fossil record.

That raises a quetion of how transitional forms could possibly live long enough to reproduce.  If some mutation formed a lung in a fish, it would drown in the water.  If it was lucky enough to jump onto land before drowning, how did it move and find food? Much less find a mate and reproduce more of the mutated new form.  Injecting first millions, then later billions of years does not change the fact that transitional forms cannot survive.

Bring a fossil to a secular scientist and ask him how old it is.  He will ask you what layer of the geological "record" you found it in-he could then tell you how old it is.  Ask a scientist how old a layer is in the geological "record" and he will ask you what fossils you found in the layer-then tell you how old the layer is.  This is circular logic, and is not scientific.

I propose that one searching for the truth, without a pre-supposed idea of the existance or non-existance of a supreme being, viewing the evidence (fossil record, bible, observable scientific experiments) would conclude that it is entirely possible that the bible is true and the earth is relatively young.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And for all our "wisdom" and insight, we STILL say the sun is setting, implying the sun is moving, not the earth.  Man!  Are we stupid! I actually agree with that, its a statement that is correct given an earthly frame of reference. The problem is its supposed to be the inerrant word of an all knowing God.   Why would His book have an earthly frame of reference? It makes sense if the human who was God's vessel had a say in the editorial process.   If so, the Bible is not God's word, but God's word as told by _unknownauthor_   Every study Bible I have read lists authors at the beginnings of the books.  Not unknown authors. Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic.

_____________________________

Re" "Most of the books of the Bible are pseudepigraphic."  

True.

Just as current used in terms of an otherwise unkown author or speaker to make reference to a more historically "known" and accepted source, so too was this applied to many parts of the Hebrew Bible.   Scholastic study of the Hebrew Bible has indicated that it is a heavily edited document, with Exegetic and Hermeneutic parallels with other Near Eastern literature.

Quoted: I beleive in God, i beleive that some being designed our world. As we use science to discover more about our world, we see that there are laws, laws that must have been put into place by someone/something, who is God. Through scientific method, we find that somethings will happen over and over again, and we can be 99.9999999% sure that next time a human being on the planet earth picks up a ball and lets it go, it will fall towards the earth. Through this scientific method we can better understand God's design of our bodies, of the elements, and harness it and create our own laws and organization, allowing for humaniity to prosper. Through the scientific method, Darwin proposed a theory that humanity and all being evolve, and that looking at fossil record, spanning millions of years, you find solid, undeniable evidence that yes, creatures over millions of years change and evolve to their enviroment. However, why are there some people who seek to deny this scientific theory forum in public schools, when it is the most reasonable theory for how we came into being. God, in his ability to create this entire universe in its infinite complexities, probably did not choose to write the bible literally... Why are people interpretting the bible so literally? The earth is clearly not ~5000 years old as some theological scholars of the middle ages proposed, so why are some modern day biblical scholars so convinced that God snapped his fingers and suddenly the human form in its infinite complexities appeared? God has all of time to work with, don't you think that a few million years of evolution would be less then a snap to him? Blah. All i'm trying to express is my confusion to why some religious leaders seek to silence Darwin's scientific theory, and offer up nothing better then a literal interpretation of the Bible.

________________________

You're right...back to your original question.  I don't believe that religious thought is best served through incorporation or explanation by application of science.  Similarly, I don't believe science is the appropriate yardstick by which religion may be explained.  I believe that using one to explain truth to the other does a disservice to both.

The only application I see of science to religion is in archeologic application.

Why can't evolution and christianity get along? Here is why:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26

"Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity's demise when science and evolution triumph.

Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism."

G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity."

G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30



The whole goal of evolution theory is to provide the rastional man an alternative to a devin creater

Quoted: Why can't evolution and christianity get along? Here is why: "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26 "Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity's demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 "The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 The whole goal of evolution theory is to provide the rastional man an alternative to a devin creater

Bozarth is a nutbag.  He views atheism as a moral movement.   Humanism is a moral movement,  UUism is a moral movement.   Atheism is a lack of belief in God.  

Many Christians believe that evolution is the way God did things, so I doubt that the acceptance of evolution will destroy Christianity.

Quoted: ummmm, G-d created man as he is today.

This is from a rabbi in Israel from before he became religious:  The rabbi said that when he was in seventh grade in a secular school, his science teacher told him that his grandfather was a monkey to  which he replied "you and your father are monkeys".  He then went to bible class where the teacher told him that G-d  created man.  Nobody was able to tell him the contradiction.  The rabbi then said: "that his science teacher regularly goes to the zoo to visit his monkey relatives  and they still haven't changed they're still monkeys.  They haven't evolved"

The reason is that G-d created man!  Darwin's theory is nothing but monkey business.

(G-d's name is misspelled intentionally due its holiness. )

Because if you date the Bible, the world is only roughly 5000 years old, whereas life and evolution supposedly happened over billions of years.  Sorry guys, but Im going with God on this one, cant argue with the man.

Quoted: Because if you date the Bible, the world is only roughly 5000 years old, whereas life and evolution supposedly happened over billions of years.  Sorry guys, but Im going with God on this one, cant argue with the man.

I'm not aware of any passage in the Bible that tells how old the earth is.   Any age  you get from the Bible is an interpretation that relies on assumptions.  Old Earth Creationists and Christian Evolutionists both think the earth is old and have no problem with reconciling that with the Bible.

‘The scientist enters into a study with certain preconceived notions and interprets the results of the study with the same preconceived notions. True objectivity simply does not exist in the scientific world. A creationist and an evolutionist can agree on the data, the physically observable phenomena (whether it be the distribution of radioisotopes in a given geological structure or the bone formations of a living animal or fossil). They will then proceed to interpret that data according to their own presuppositions (“God created this” or “It all happened by accident”). Both employ the same data, but reach strikingly different conclusions.’ (Donald F. Calbreath, The Challenge of Creationism: Another Point of View, American Laboratory, November 1980, 10.)

Quoted: ‘The scientist enters into a study with certain preconceived notions and interprets the results of the study with the same preconceived notions. True objectivity simply does not exist in the scientific world. A creationist and an evolutionist can agree on the data, the physically observable phenomena (whether it be the distribution of radioisotopes in a given geological structure or the bone formations of a living animal or fossil). They will then proceed to interpret that data according to their own presuppositions (“God created this” or “It all happened by accident”). Both employ the same data, but reach strikingly different conclusions.’ (Donald F. Calbreath, The Challenge of Creationism: Another Point of View, American Laboratory, November 1980, 10.)

of course they do, thats how science works.

Those "preconcieved notions" are things like 2+2=4 not "God made everything"

Other preconcieved notions of science
Gravity
Inertia
Germ theory of disease

Compare those with some preconcieved notions of religion
Immaculate Conception
Resurrection
Original Sin
Inerrant Bible

Science builds upon itself.  Once a theory has recieved sufficient confirmation, it is viewed as scientific fact until a better theory is presented.  

Religion also builds upon itself, but the base concepts don't require evidence to support them. You take them on faith and go from there.

Quoted: Why can't evolution and christianity get along? Here is why: "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26 "Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity's demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 "The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 The whole goal of evolution theory is to provide the rastional man an alternative to a devin creater

__________________________________

Regarding:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary."

The person of  Jesus would have been a Jew of his time.  Literature of this period, and presumably known by this Jew, would have been both understanding the nature of creation and it's interpretation; so too other aspects of the Hebrew Bible that were written in much the same poetical and literary framework that has been typical of ancient middle-east (semitic) texts from then to this day.

I was Christian once, and educated at a Christian University...regarding specifically that "Christianity has fought, still fights" is a battle I believe you and a small group of Christians may see yourself on the fringe or losing end.  

Quoted: Quoted: Why can't evolution and christianity get along? Here is why: "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism." John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26 "Atheism is the philosophy, both moral and ethical, most perfectly suited for a scientific civilization. If we work for the American Atheists today, Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity's demise when science and evolution triumph. Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 "The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity." G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30 The whole goal of evolution theory is to provide the rastional man an alternative to a devin creater __________________________________ Regarding: "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary." The person of  Jesus would have been a Jew of his time.  Literature of this period, and presumably known by this Jew, would have been both understanding the nature of creation and it's interpretation; so too other aspects of the Hebrew Bible that were written in much the same poetical and literary framework that has been typical of ancient middle-east (semitic) texts from then to this day. I was Christian once, and educated at a Christian University...regarding specifically that "Christianity has fought, still fights" is a battle I believe you and a small group of Christians may see yourself on the fringe or losing end.

Jesus was the creator (John1), so I bet he was a creationist.
Jesus Quoted Gen1 and Gen 2 (Matt 19:2-6)as fact, so I bet he belived them litteraly, not poeticly.
Jesus believed in a real Noah and a real ark. He belived in a real flood that destryoed all men on earth except Noah and his family on the ark.(Matt 24:37-39)

Go back and read the account Noah gives, it reads like excerpts from a diary. I bring this up because it is fundamental to understanding biblical creationism.


I bet your "Christian university" did more damage to your beliefs than evolution did. Sadly, few "christian universities" teach creationism, so what you got was a psudo christian education. I don't blame you for rejecting it. They comprimise the bible at every turn, from creationism to JEDP authors.

I think you may be mistaken about our numbers and our strenght. Creationism is sweeping across the church, we are fighting back at the heresy in the church. You have to understand that this is the next reformation in the church.
"Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!
Martin Luther"


Like it or not, creationism is what the bible teaches, and THAT is why evolution and the bible can never get along.