An interesting view of creation/evolution

[yesdachi]

What I find amazing is the way that the canonical works are followed so blindly, whereas the much greater mass of non-canonical writings are largely ignored.

Not blindly, because they are told to by Pastor Neverwrong.

I remember going to a bible study a while ago and after arguing for the first half decided to sit and be quiet thru the second half and just never go back. What a bunch of sheep they were.

Not all churches are that militant in their beliefs, thank goodness, but the ones that are, are very frustrating to be in or deal with.

I believe in god and in evolution but I take the bible as more of a source to learn lessons from rather than a factual history of the world.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, the joy of being Catholic. Being able to be devout and enjoy astronomy.

"See that faint, fuzzy blob of light? It's hundreds of thousands of light years away." Be kind of hard for all the light to have reached us from the stars if the universe was but 10,000 years old.

Crazed Rabbit

[InsaneApache]

Another cretinist topic

Now that I like.

[Tribesman]

Is religiosity some kind of a "tragic flaw" in your evaluation of others?

Nope , the flaw is in what he wrote ........Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

Can you spot it ? it has been dealt with umpteen times already .

Further to answer you question about "religiosity"(is that a word ) try the quote From St Augustine I posted in the last cretinist topic , it is as true now as it was when he (allegedly , as its down to believing what someone said he said) said it . It sums up this whole topic .

Ah, the joy of being Catholic. Being able to be devout and enjoy astronomy.

Rabbit brings up a very valid point , a scientific veiw of astronomy theories rather than a biblical one would have got him tortured by the Catholic church a while back , but then again the Catholic church is an apostate church according to Nav so perhaps that is why they don't condemn scientists so often nowadays .

Now fair play to Nav , he does know his scripture , and his posting has prompted me to read several of the books that are no longer in the bible , or are still in the bible in very heavily edited form (though of course the accuracy of those other books is also a matter of dispute). But there is a serious problem with his reasoning , you could call it a fundamental flaw based on his adherence to the absolute truth of the Old Testament , yet he rejects parts of the Old Testament .
If it is truth and absolute truth in its entirety then it must be absolute truth in its entirety , you cannot pick out bits and say "oh well that isn't true anymore because well , you can see that isn't true anymore , but the rest of it is because it is true and its all true , well apart from that and that as things change you know " yet he does .

[AntiochusIII]

Well, here is my opinion, in short version:

The matter of reconciling faith with science belongs to those with the faith.

The rest of us, well, we don't even have the problem in the first place.

Though these two articles are well-written and intelligent, and present reasonable viewpoints, I would say that they are neither particularly groundbreaking nor are they particularly original. Then again, a repetition of sensibility in this world of superstitions might not be so undesirable...

Of note in the first article, apart from the matter of faith and science, is the statement about the views of some scientists that science adequately provide the explanations of our existence, without the need for religion. It intelligently states the point which many miss: scientists have opinions, too, and these are statements of philosophical nature as opposed to being scientific. Even some of the more intelligent "people of the faith" make the mistake of associating this particular philosophical viewpoint with science, and then attack it. A sad mistake, I'd say.

In the second, the general theme is recognition that superstition and irrationality as something human: dynamic, adaptable, inherent, useful.

[rotorgun]

Now that was well said AntiochusIII, and very apt to our discusion. I especially like the following from your arguement:

Of note in the first article, apart from the matter of faith and science, is the statement about the views of some scientists that science adequately provide the explanations of our existence, without the need for religion. It intelligently states the point which many miss: scientists have opinions, too, and these are statements of philosophical nature as opposed to being scientific. Even some of the more intelligent "people of the faith" make the mistake of associating this particular philosophical viewpoint with science, and then attack it. A sad mistake, I'd say.

I tend to agree with you that "people of faith" do have a tendency to attack the opinions of others. In that regard, some "scientific minded folks" have the same tendency to dismiss (I hate to asy it) "faith based" philosophies.

I offer the following short quote from Paul's epistle (if it is even certain that he is the human author) to the Romans for our consideration:

....since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For scince the creation (I'll agree that the world may be older than 10,000 years) of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20, NIV, Broadman & Holman)

I think this chimes in with what you are saying. The next part in verses 21-23 are a warning against unbelief and worship of false gods:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave him thanks, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claim to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birsds and animals and reptiles.

While clearly Pual was writing to a first century audience in Rome, it still speaks to us today in amany ways. Certainly most modern people are no longer idol worshippers in the strict sense, but many still worship at the high alter of materializm and put their faith in modern philosophies that are not always good moral guides. I like the begining of Chapter two:

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for
at whatever you point you judge the other, you are condemming yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Rom 2:1, NIV)

It is sage advice to all of us, believer and non believer to give one another respect in our views. As I have alluded to previously, I do not ascribe to the literal interpretation of Genesis' account of creation, but certainly feel that God's divine hand was, and is still, a part of it.

Regards,

PS edit: Does anyone know if the Koran speaks about the creation in the same way as the Christian Bible? Here is your chance my Muslim brothers to kick the Christians around a bit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nope , the flaw is in what he wrote ........Nothing is more irrational then believing that apes turned into men.

Can you spot it ? it has been dealt with umpteen times already.

Well, I gave him credit here for a little bit of literary flair. The current version of the Theory of Evolution asserts commonalities in development and not some form of metamorphosis, of course. Both forms of life are advancing in parallel. My estimate is that Nav was aware of this and simply using a little "Tennessee v. John Scopes" license.

Now fair play to Nav , he does know his scripture , and his posting has prompted me to read several of the books that are no longer in the bible , or are still in the bible in very heavily edited form (though of course the accuracy of those other books is also a matter of dispute). But there is a serious problem with his reasoning , you could call it a fundamental flaw based on his adherence to the absolute truth of the Old Testament , yet he rejects parts of the Old Testament .
If it is truth and absolute truth in its entirety then it must be absolute truth in its entirety, you cannot pick out bits and say "oh well that isn't true anymore because well, you can see that isn't true anymore , but the rest of it is because it is true and its all true , well apart from that and that as things change you know" yet he does.

Much better argument here Tribes'. I hope Nav' replies, as this is one he should be able to counter in support of his own argument. You are attempting to counter his argument within its own context -- good show -- and not attacking the "givens" upon which it is based. The latter approach is not exactly "unfair," but comes off a bit dismissive.

[ajaxfetish]

Based on this article I must say that Keith Ward and I are in very close agreement on the nature of God's creation and the relationship of faith and science. I've come to think that at least in modern times the Catholic Church has a much more mature attitude when it comes to this relationship than most Protestant denominations, or even my own church.

And as usual, Navaros makes arguments I can't possibly reconcile with any consistent or acceptable notion of God.

Ajax

[Mooks]

Gah!! Another forum is having this exact same topic over and over again. Iv almost resolved to saying "WE WILL FIND OUT WHEN WE DIE"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rabbit brings up a very valid point , a scientific veiw of astronomy theories rather than a biblical one would have got him tortured by the Catholic church a while back

Really? Galileo was put under house arrest, but certainly not tortured. Copernicus was encouraged to publish his theory that the earth was not the center of the universe by members of the clergy.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Really? Galileo was put under house arrest, but certainly not tortured. Copernicus was encouraged to publish his theory that the earth was not the center of the universe by members of the clergy.


Really ? Thats funny as Galileo was encouraged by members of the clergy too , then shipped of to be threatened with the inquisition by the very same clergymen . wierd isn't it .
Still he was lucky though , all he had to do was swear that he was wrong , embace the bible as the truth and apologise for his heresey to avoid the fates of Bruno or De Domini of Spalatro who were not so lucky when it came to avoiding torture for studying "incorrect" science .
A or two might help you

[Crazed Rabbit]

You've got to come up with more information than just one obscure example without any proof to back up your flat out claim that having a heliocentric view would have gotten me tortured.

Crazed Rabbit

[ajaxfetish]

If Galileo would have limited himself to making assertions he could support, refrained from viciously deriding his colleagues, and generally not been such an arrogant jackass he probably wouldn't have had to put up with what little he did face. During his time the Catholic Church was the biggest supporter of science, philosophy, and new ideas in the western world.

Ajax

[Papewaio]

If Galileo would have limited himself to making assertions he could support, refrained from viciously deriding his colleagues, and generally not been such an arrogant jackass he probably wouldn't have had to put up with what little he did face.

Sounds a bit like Newton or any Physics conference to me... something about scientists and sarcasm methinks.