07-26-2007, 01:59 PM
07-28-2007, 11:32 PM
Best story I ever did hear.
Except that 10,000 year thing the creationists demand. That's a little far-fetched. But what the hey? Why not?
gus
Except that 10,000 year thing the creationists demand. That's a little far-fetched. But what the hey? Why not?
gus
08-08-2007, 05:55 AM
If it were anything other than evolution it would be laughed at.
Said before, evolution is impossible.
People, on the other hand, believe what they want to believe, and is not based on how the facts stack up.
Said before, evolution is impossible.
People, on the other hand, believe what they want to believe, and is not based on how the facts stack up.
08-17-2007, 01:42 PM
The problem with science and scientific theory is that its remit is only with what is in nature. It deals with what can be measured and predicted according to a set of perceived rules. This actually is a good thing because otherwise no understanding of how things in nature work would be possible. Science is not a search for truth within all areas of knowledge but only within the physically created or natural universe. Science cannot go off into the area of faith and religion or even the existence of God nor should it. The reason for this is simple. You cannot experimentally prove the existence of God or anything supernatural or the mechanisms by which they operate.
It is true that the natural world provides much evidence for the existence of God and even more evidence in areas where it seems unable to get an exact measurement of what is going on. These things though are not scientific proof. For instance Christ resurrected the dead. Scientifically that IS impossible. So scientifically you cannot prove that it was a miracle. To `know` that the miracle is true you use knowledge of a different kind. This is knowledge of things outside the rules governing the universe. Many scientists do believe in God but they don’t go about trying to prove his existence because they know that is not possible using knowledge gleaned from what he physically created.
If science did expand its area to that of the supernatural it would no longer be science. Measurements and repeatable experiments would no longer have any value. If you tried to test a miracle out in the way one tests out the normal world you would run into problems. You would not be able to repeat it at will because it was from God and you could not get information on the way the natural universe functions from it because it is from a supernatural source.
Science in its attempt to explain life has come up with a theory and the one they have at the moment is called evolution. The thing with evolution, however, is that a limited type of evolution could well have been used by God. Along with this at crucial stages of development a helping supernatural hand. This idea would solve a lot of problems faced by an overall appraisal of both scientific evolution and religious creationism.
The problem that is happening now is that creationism’s attempt at science is in fact destroying the credibility of both science and religion. For instance creationism says that the universe or at the least the earth is only ten thousand or whatever years old. This is absolutely stupid and can be proved so via proper science. This sort of thing makes rational intelligent people reject God and faith. On the other hand science is more or less innocent with human exceptions of course because it only is supposed to deal with the natural world. Science as a concept is fine and even elements of evolution are probably true. The overall current theory is wrong when matched to all areas of human knowledge but perhaps not so much with regard to the area of physical laws and natural functioning. Because of this it probably still is of value in edifying the man of faith. Creationism on the other hand rejects all reason and could damage both science and religion.
It is true that the natural world provides much evidence for the existence of God and even more evidence in areas where it seems unable to get an exact measurement of what is going on. These things though are not scientific proof. For instance Christ resurrected the dead. Scientifically that IS impossible. So scientifically you cannot prove that it was a miracle. To `know` that the miracle is true you use knowledge of a different kind. This is knowledge of things outside the rules governing the universe. Many scientists do believe in God but they don’t go about trying to prove his existence because they know that is not possible using knowledge gleaned from what he physically created.
If science did expand its area to that of the supernatural it would no longer be science. Measurements and repeatable experiments would no longer have any value. If you tried to test a miracle out in the way one tests out the normal world you would run into problems. You would not be able to repeat it at will because it was from God and you could not get information on the way the natural universe functions from it because it is from a supernatural source.
Science in its attempt to explain life has come up with a theory and the one they have at the moment is called evolution. The thing with evolution, however, is that a limited type of evolution could well have been used by God. Along with this at crucial stages of development a helping supernatural hand. This idea would solve a lot of problems faced by an overall appraisal of both scientific evolution and religious creationism.
The problem that is happening now is that creationism’s attempt at science is in fact destroying the credibility of both science and religion. For instance creationism says that the universe or at the least the earth is only ten thousand or whatever years old. This is absolutely stupid and can be proved so via proper science. This sort of thing makes rational intelligent people reject God and faith. On the other hand science is more or less innocent with human exceptions of course because it only is supposed to deal with the natural world. Science as a concept is fine and even elements of evolution are probably true. The overall current theory is wrong when matched to all areas of human knowledge but perhaps not so much with regard to the area of physical laws and natural functioning. Because of this it probably still is of value in edifying the man of faith. Creationism on the other hand rejects all reason and could damage both science and religion.
08-17-2007, 03:07 PM
You're right, Bri. Both religious and scientific explanations are a joke...and unnecessarily so. Essentially, science has become a religion...expecting people to believe what it can't prove based upon a scientific method which it created to ensure that truth is truth.
Science has proved time and time again that things reproduce according to their kind. This is our experience too. We have seen adaptations and variety amongst "their kind," but a "kind" is still a kind. Yet off they go and try to tell everyone that things do not reproduce according to their kind...that they evolve from one to another. This is a flaw in the basic premise that can't be overcome, yet we are asked to believe it. It's religion.
If someone wants to know the truth about evolution, do a study of taxonomy and genetics. The acronym everyone should have learned in 7th grade science is: KPCOFGS..or,
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
Genetics tells you that the more specific you get (toward species), the less variety there is in the genetic code. It stands to reason, then, that the more general we get (toward kingdom) the more variety there is. HOWEVER...all life within "kingdom" still shares a majority of the genetic code...and, as such, there are "similarities." We are, for the most part, similar - whether we have wings to fly or gills to breathe underwater. Fast forward a few million years. It would have been advantageous for men to fly or live underwater; but none have been able to do it without technology.
We can run faster, jump higher and swim farther...but we have always been able to run, jump and swim. You would think that the brain would have been similarly blessed. After all...we have always had the ability to think.
gus
Science has proved time and time again that things reproduce according to their kind. This is our experience too. We have seen adaptations and variety amongst "their kind," but a "kind" is still a kind. Yet off they go and try to tell everyone that things do not reproduce according to their kind...that they evolve from one to another. This is a flaw in the basic premise that can't be overcome, yet we are asked to believe it. It's religion.
If someone wants to know the truth about evolution, do a study of taxonomy and genetics. The acronym everyone should have learned in 7th grade science is: KPCOFGS..or,
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
Genetics tells you that the more specific you get (toward species), the less variety there is in the genetic code. It stands to reason, then, that the more general we get (toward kingdom) the more variety there is. HOWEVER...all life within "kingdom" still shares a majority of the genetic code...and, as such, there are "similarities." We are, for the most part, similar - whether we have wings to fly or gills to breathe underwater. Fast forward a few million years. It would have been advantageous for men to fly or live underwater; but none have been able to do it without technology.
We can run faster, jump higher and swim farther...but we have always been able to run, jump and swim. You would think that the brain would have been similarly blessed. After all...we have always had the ability to think.
gus
05-14-2008, 07:27 AM
Lots of interesting thoughts there Gus.
05-27-2008, 05:52 PM
Hi all,
I find this subject very interesting.
If by, "Evolution", you mean life on this planet has arisen by a series of fortuitous accidents, clearly that requires a lot more 'faith' than most believing people have.
If by, "Evolution", you mean the omniscient God whose thoughts are past tracing out, cannot have created life in any other way than zipping it into existence in timescales that fit into our tiny little 'drop in the bucket' weekly time frames, then there is a possibility that such dogmatism is, perhaps, incorrect.
Frankly,I have not come to any conclusion as to how life was created on the planet or how long it took...fact is, life is a great wonder and by oversimplifications we fail to properly honour the great work of the Creator God.
I know I was characterized as believing in evolution recently and I certainly believe that theistic evolution is hard to refute and has merit.
However, from the way I see it we seem to know so very little about the process complex life came to be created and biodiversity originated.
It would be easy to see the Holy Spirit as been the cohesive driving energy for all order inanimate and animate at all levels
In apparent disorder there is always a coherence emerging in the chance and random nature of all that exists in the material universe.
atb
Derek
I find this subject very interesting.
If by, "Evolution", you mean life on this planet has arisen by a series of fortuitous accidents, clearly that requires a lot more 'faith' than most believing people have.
If by, "Evolution", you mean the omniscient God whose thoughts are past tracing out, cannot have created life in any other way than zipping it into existence in timescales that fit into our tiny little 'drop in the bucket' weekly time frames, then there is a possibility that such dogmatism is, perhaps, incorrect.
Frankly,I have not come to any conclusion as to how life was created on the planet or how long it took...fact is, life is a great wonder and by oversimplifications we fail to properly honour the great work of the Creator God.
I know I was characterized as believing in evolution recently and I certainly believe that theistic evolution is hard to refute and has merit.
However, from the way I see it we seem to know so very little about the process complex life came to be created and biodiversity originated.
It would be easy to see the Holy Spirit as been the cohesive driving energy for all order inanimate and animate at all levels
In apparent disorder there is always a coherence emerging in the chance and random nature of all that exists in the material universe.
atb
Derek