What ever happened to RESPECT

[Potapko]

Religion, MANs attempt to reach God.........Christianity, Gods attempt to reach MAN.

In there, lies all the confusion. Besides, without a thorough knowledge of history, most of the bible would make no sense.

Very well put! That is in fact the difference between Bible Christianity and all other (God based) religions. I put that in because someone will certainly bring up tree worship

Snowbear I think said:
TDP - As someone who chose for many, many years a "belief system" similar to what Andy describes, I feel the need to tell you that all the folks who told me I would burn in hell for not accepting Christ as my savior could never scare me to accept that. I believed that death was a relief from the hell here on earth and that once I die, my body is just a shell to return to the earth. It was someone who taught me and showed me that God is and is about Love that convinced me to choose to accept Him. My Faith is puny at best and some days seems non-existant, but at the core of it, I've learned that no matter what I think or do, as long as I remember that Christ Is, there is hope for my pathetic failure of a soul.

As to evolution, big bang and whatever other theories - I am a scientist (my degree is in Biological Sciences) by training. Life does evolve and in some cases devolve in the context of mutations and adaptations between and within species. From those who say that life was formed from a primordial pool of organic matter, where did that organic matter come from? For those who say the earth and universe(s) compressed into existance from loose atoms imploded or exploded into a bunch of space debris - where did those atoms come from? Maybe Something had to create them?

I do not look at it as trying to scare people into believing but rather warning them of what consequences they will face for their decisions. Is it trying to scare someone to tell them that if they steal or kill, they will go to jail for a few years?

We need to distinguish between evolution and variation. No intelligent person denies variation. It is observable and testable. Animals vary within kinds, and within limits can be interbred. Certainly there is adaptation and variation, (I am not trying to tell you anything in your area of expertise )
But neither of those can be used to make the quantum leap to macro-evolution from one kind of creature to another. For example Darwin's research with finches. A long beak to a short beak is a change, a variation, an "evolution" oooh dae I say it. But it is still a finch! Now a Dinosaur to a bird, now that is the evolution that is completely unproven and is a giant leap of "faith"

Hope this clarifies my position. :11:

 

[Kim]

Now a Dinosaur to a bird, now that is the evolution that is completely unproven and is a giant leap of "faith"

Actually it's not. They have recently found fossil evidence in China that supports this theory quite well. It was some form of adapted Raptor that quite clearly had developed feathers. I think that the evidence was compelling enough to cut it down from a 'giant leap of faith' to at least an 'educated best guess' - maybe even more in many peoples eyes. In any event the fossil was real - and not to be denied. However, I suppose for one who already knows the truth there's not much use for an open mind, so it doesn't matter much.

 

[Potapko]

Actually it's not. They have recently found fossil evidence in China that supports this theory quite well. It was some form of adapted Raptor that quite clearly had developed feathers.

What they found was a creature that had feathers. The "developed" and "adapted part is merely conjecture due to their world view of evolution. Right or wrong? If wrong, why?

 

[cornfed]

Right or wrong? If wrong, why?

Your beliefs are predicated on what you read in the bible, mine on what I read in a biology text.

 

[Kim]

Actually it's not. They have recently found fossil evidence in China that supports this theory quite well. It was some form of adapted Raptor that quite clearly had developed feathers.

What they found was a creature that had feathers. The "developed" and "adapted part is merely conjecture due to their world view of evolution. Right or wrong? If wrong, why?

Basically wrong. The rest of the bone structure placed it clearly in the Raptor family (the Raptors were actual dinosaurs - not just a figment of Steven Speiberg's imagination).
However - as the old saying goes: "You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear."
I guess that goes for the both of us, no? In any event it's no more a "leap of faith" for me to believe what is in front of my eyes than it is a "leap of faith" for you to believe in the dubious translations of a text of dubious origins. But then religion is about faith isn't it? So I don't fault you for your faith or your beliefs - I simply don't agree with your version. I would strongly defend, however, your right to believe what you wish - as I would hope that you would defend me. Love is about love - it has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[H2Andy]

In any event it's no more a "leap of faith" for me to believe what is in front of my eyes than it is a "leap of faith" for you to believe in the dubious translations of a text of dubious origins.

this is exactly what i've been trying to say, poorly.

by definition, the existance or non-existance of God can not
be proved.

the most science can do is show us ways in which things
can happen WITHOUT God being involved. It can not,
however, prove that God WAS NOT involved.

unless you take every word of the Bible literally, there really
is no conflict between a supernatural being and science.

is there anyone who disagrees with this? i'd like to hear from you.

 

[Potapko]

Your beliefs are predicated on what you read in the bible, mine on what I read in a biology text.

I would agree with this statement. It has been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt,( well, ok beyond a doubt at all :11: ) that the Bible is God's word, not that it contains God's words but every word is from God. So, I look at the evidence from that perspective. Someone who is convinced that the scientists who wrote those textbooks are not biased can believe them. Fine with me. Could we look at some of the proven errors in those books?

How about Piltdown man, built from one tooth and later proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Still in your textbooks today as proof for evolution.

How about Java man, manufactured from a few fragments of skullbone three molars and a femur. The remainder was the result of a very fruitful imagination.
How about Heidelburg man, the majority of a jaw bone, and a few teeth. Proof that we evolved from lower forms.

How about the evolution of the horse, research it for yourself, this was proven to be incorrect (as shown in all the diagrams) 40 years ago but it is still in the textbooks.

We can go on and on. I'll stick with the Word of the one who was there and tells us how He did it.

 

[BIGSAGE136]

this is exactly what i've been trying to say, poorly.

by definition, the existance or non-existance of God can not
be proved.

the most science can do is show us ways in which things
can happen WITHOUT God being involved. It can not,
however, prove that God WAS NOT involved.

unless you take every word of the Bible literally, there really
is no conflict between a supernatural being and science.

is there anyone who disagrees with this? i'd like to hear from you.

That would only be a resonance played out on a string. You are right, and wrong. The proof is the ability to question. It's in you!

 

[Potapko]

unless you take every word of the Bible literally, there really
is no conflict between a supernatural being and science.

is there anyone who disagrees with this? i'd like to hear from you.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I know I am not supposed to post so often. Anyway, Look, it has been stated several times that those of us who hold strongly to the Bible somehow do not "respect" the others in this discussion. At least for me, I think for the others as well, this is not true. I said it before, you have the same right to believe what you believe as I do or anybody else for that matter. With that said,
What are the conflicts between God and Science if we do take the Bible literally? I do not mean between one theory or another but with real science, meaning the evidence which is found throughout the world?
Meaning, dinosaurs fit with the Bible record
The fossils fit with the Bible record
Human history fits with the Bible record

the explanation for pain and suffering fits......and so on.

 

[H2Andy]

How about Piltdown man, built from one tooth and later proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Still in your textbooks today as proof for evolution.

incorrect. it was discovered as a fraud and discredited
in 1953. by the way, as early as 1925, the findings
were in doubt. the "remains" were tested in 1949
and shown to be modern. In 1953, the hoax was
finally exposed.

you are either ignorant or lying when you say Piltdown
man is still being taught as science.

the rest of your examples were temporary explanations
which have been since revised:

How about Java man, manufactured from a few fragments of skullbone three molars and a femur. The remainder was the result of a very fruitful imagination.

dude, this happened in 1891 and it has long since been corrected. again, no modern scientist will disagree that the femur is more recent than the skullcap, belonging to a modern human, and that some of the teeth found nearby are probably from an orangutan rather than Homo erectus.

you miss the point, though, the existance of Homo erectus
has now been confirmed over and over and over by
much more reliable findings.

How about Heidelburg man, the majority of a jaw bone, and a few teeth. Proof that we evolved from lower forms.

it is not proof of anything. it is another of many Homo
erectus findings which show that something rather similar to humans but not quite human walked around in the past.

to get the BIC PICTURE, which the findings back up,
please read http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858697.html

and remember, there are hoaxes in religion too. to name
just two, how about Jim Jones and David Karesh?

should i use those two examples to discredit religion?

i think not.