[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? 
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so.
While I dont agree with creationist views (I’m an atheist) I do understand the need for the critique of evolutionary theory; I mean anyone may be able to be the one who comes up with a good argument that could shift around some evidence etc. Thats the evolution (pun har har) of science in general terms.
The issue I see, which is relatively common, is the idea that if for some reason evolution has flaws, or better yet, is “disproved” (dont bet on it) then creationism is the winner. And not just any creationism mind you, but God of Abraham creationism. If someone did manage to “dismantle” evolutionary theory, all it would mean is we would take the parts that work and look at other things to fit the empty spots left by those that didnt. It would still, (and this is important) explain things. Creationism, even if it WAS TRUE, doesn’t explain anything.
So try not to think of it as a “versus” debate, its not.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]
Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.
Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]magus678 wrote:
While I dont agree with creationist views (I’m an atheist) I do understand the need for the critique of evolutionary theory; I mean anyone may be able to be the one who comes up with a good argument that could shift around some evidence etc. Thats the evolution (pun har har) of science in general terms.
The issue I see, which is relatively common, is the idea that if for some reason evolution has flaws, or better yet, is “disproved” (dont bet on it) then creationism is the winner. And not just any creationism mind you, but God of Abraham creationism. If someone did manage to “dismantle” evolutionary theory, all it would mean is we would take the parts that work and look at other things to fit the empty spots left by those that didnt. It would still, (and this is important) explain things. Creationism, even if it WAS TRUE, doesn’t explain anything.
So try not to think of it as a “versus” debate, its not.[/quote]
While I don’t agree with evolutionary views (macro-evolutionary) (I’m a creationist) I do understand the need for the critique of creation theory; I mean anyone may be able to be the one who comes up with a good argument that could shift around some evidence etc. That’s the evolution (pun har har) of science in general terms.
The issue I see, which is relatively common, is the idea that if for some reason creation has flaws, or better yet, is “disproved” (don’t bet on it) then macro-evolution is the winner. And not just any evolution mind you, but god of Darwinism evolution - the kind that in spite of a complete lack of evidence insists that transitions above the genus level occurred by the billions and billions over and over and over again. If someone did manage to “dismantle” creation theory, all it would mean is we would take the parts that work and look at other things to fit the empty spots left by those that didn’t. It would still, (and this is important) explain things. Evolutionism, even if it WAS TRUE, doesn’t explain anything.
So try not to think of it as a “versus” debate, it’s not.[/quote]
My mistake, I thought we were just having moderately amiable conversation. I wasn’t aware egos were on the line here. I leave you to it then.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]
Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.
Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[/quote]
I am no scientist, and as I read a lot of the posts about science, it is very interesting. I am a creationist to the extent that I beleive God made everything. The part I find hard to understand is how the World was made. When you read Genesis you see that the sun was not made till the 4th day. I am trying to go on memory here so please forgive me is I am off a day or two. A day is twenty four hours, and explains the earth turning on its axis and the revolution around the sun. If the sun was not made till the 4th day what time frame was the first 3 days? Who knows? Also I find it amazing how people of 5000 years ago were pretty spot on the creation/evolution of the fish, animals, and beasts of the air, and the order in which they were created. These people being ignorant of science hit it pretty spot on. Humans were made last and no one will dispute that modern humans were created or evolved last in the chain. Modern Humans as all would agree are really different than any other hominid spelling ever found. This new find might show we are close to the same make up, but we are different. Chimps and Modern Humans are very close in make up, but we are very much different. Agree?
Where’s the evidence for a 6000 year-old universe?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]
Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.
Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[/quote]
I am no scientist, and as I read a lot of the posts about science, it is very interesting. I am a creationist to the extent that I beleive God made everything. The part I find hard to understand is how the World was made. When you read Genesis you see that the sun was not made till the 4th day. I am trying to go on memory here so please forgive me is I am off a day or two. A day is twenty four hours, and explains the earth turning on its axis and the revolution around the sun. If the sun was not made till the 4th day what time frame was the first 3 days? Who knows? Also I find it amazing how people of 5000 years ago were pretty spot on the creation/evolution of the fish, animals, and beasts of the air, and the order in which they were created. These people being ignorant of science hit it pretty spot on. Humans were made last and no one will dispute that modern humans were created or evolved last in the chain. Modern Humans as all would agree are really different than any other hominid spelling ever found. This new find might show we are close to the same make up, but we are different. Chimps and Modern Humans are very close in make up, but we are very much different. Agree?[/quote]
No disagreement at all.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]
Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.
Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[/quote]
I am no scientist, and as I read a lot of the posts about science, it is very interesting. I am a creationist to the extent that I beleive God made everything. The part I find hard to understand is how the World was made. When you read Genesis you see that the sun was not made till the 4th day. I am trying to go on memory here so please forgive me is I am off a day or two. A day is twenty four hours, and explains the earth turning on its axis and the revolution around the sun. If the sun was not made till the 4th day what time frame was the first 3 days? Who knows? Also I find it amazing how people of 5000 years ago were pretty spot on the creation/evolution of the fish, animals, and beasts of the air, and the order in which they were created. These people being ignorant of science hit it pretty spot on. Humans were made last and no one will dispute that modern humans were created or evolved last in the chain. Modern Humans as all would agree are really different than any other hominid spelling ever found. This new find might show we are close to the same make up, but we are different. Chimps and Modern Humans are very close in make up, but we are very much different. Agree?[/quote]
You bring up some things of interest, although the simple solution would just be that the bible isn’t literally correct. In some cases I know that there are things lost in translation (genesis i remember having a hebrew word that isn’t quite “day” and is more something like "an unspecified period of time) so that can account for a bit of it, although I dont know how much really.
Taking the bible literally may be possible, but at least for me, it doesn’t seem likely. Even if they started with divine gold, the council that created the King James Version probably did not get it 100% right.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you guys are hilarious![/quote]
My comment hit close to home, didn’t it?[/quote]
…yes, i’m starting to wonder if your space genie really did send a part of himself to earth to save his creatures from the punishment he bestowed on them because someone else, who couldn’t possibly fathom the consequences, disobeyed his orders. Furthermore, i’m also doubting the vast body of evidence that proves the age of the earth, and evolution of species over time, in favor of the idea that God [the space genie] created the earth only a mere 6000 years ago!
/sarcasm
[quote]magus678 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]
Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.
Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[/quote]
I am no scientist, and as I read a lot of the posts about science, it is very interesting. I am a creationist to the extent that I beleive God made everything. The part I find hard to understand is how the World was made. When you read Genesis you see that the sun was not made till the 4th day. I am trying to go on memory here so please forgive me is I am off a day or two. A day is twenty four hours, and explains the earth turning on its axis and the revolution around the sun. If the sun was not made till the 4th day what time frame was the first 3 days? Who knows? Also I find it amazing how people of 5000 years ago were pretty spot on the creation/evolution of the fish, animals, and beasts of the air, and the order in which they were created. These people being ignorant of science hit it pretty spot on. Humans were made last and no one will dispute that modern humans were created or evolved last in the chain. Modern Humans as all would agree are really different than any other hominid spelling ever found. This new find might show we are close to the same make up, but we are different. Chimps and Modern Humans are very close in make up, but we are very much different. Agree?[/quote]
You bring up some things of interest, although the simple solution would just be that the bible isn’t literally correct. In some cases I know that there are things lost in translation (genesis i remember having a hebrew word that isn’t quite “day” and is more something like "an unspecified period of time) so that can account for a bit of it, although I dont know how much really.
Taking the bible literally may be possible, but at least for me, it doesn’t seem likely. Even if they started with divine gold, the council that created the King James Version probably did not get it 100% right.
[/quote]
I will tell you I do not have all the answers, and dont believe anyone that says they do. From my studies of the translation of the Bible, and they are not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, it shows the the KJV and the pieces found in the Dead Sea Scrolls the translations were almost identicle. The only differences were mostly punctuation and changing of some words that did not change the meaning of the scripture. I find that absolutely mind boggling. I can not tell you for sure, but for a book to be translated and copied the amount of times that it has been, tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands, and stay that true to the original is pretty impressive. You might say that well since there are a couple of mistakes so the whole thing is wrong. I say that that God had his hand in it to make sure that his word was not changed by humans. These are just my thoughts, and there will always be arguments about Christianity, and understandably so.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]magus678 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?
I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]
Nobody? :([/quote]
BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]
Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.
Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[/quote]
I am no scientist, and as I read a lot of the posts about science, it is very interesting. I am a creationist to the extent that I beleive God made everything. The part I find hard to understand is how the World was made. When you read Genesis you see that the sun was not made till the 4th day. I am trying to go on memory here so please forgive me is I am off a day or two. A day is twenty four hours, and explains the earth turning on its axis and the revolution around the sun. If the sun was not made till the 4th day what time frame was the first 3 days? Who knows? Also I find it amazing how people of 5000 years ago were pretty spot on the creation/evolution of the fish, animals, and beasts of the air, and the order in which they were created. These people being ignorant of science hit it pretty spot on. Humans were made last and no one will dispute that modern humans were created or evolved last in the chain. Modern Humans as all would agree are really different than any other hominid spelling ever found. This new find might show we are close to the same make up, but we are different. Chimps and Modern Humans are very close in make up, but we are very much different. Agree?[/quote]
You bring up some things of interest, although the simple solution would just be that the bible isn’t literally correct. In some cases I know that there are things lost in translation (genesis i remember having a hebrew word that isn’t quite “day” and is more something like "an unspecified period of time) so that can account for a bit of it, although I dont know how much really.
Taking the bible literally may be possible, but at least for me, it doesn’t seem likely. Even if they started with divine gold, the council that created the King James Version probably did not get it 100% right.
[/quote]
I will tell you I do not have all the answers, and dont believe anyone that says they do. From my studies of the translation of the Bible, and they are not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, it shows the the KJV and the pieces found in the Dead Sea Scrolls the translations were almost identicle. The only differences were mostly punctuation and changing of some words that did not change the meaning of the scripture. I find that absolutely mind boggling. I can not tell you for sure, but for a book to be translated and copied the amount of times that it has been, tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands, and stay that true to the original is pretty impressive. You might say that well since there are a couple of mistakes so the whole thing is wrong. I say that that God had his hand in it to make sure that his word was not changed by humans. These are just my thoughts, and there will always be arguments about Christianity, and understandably so.[/quote]
I’m by no means a scholar either, the hebrew thing was something I had run across and seemed applicable to what you were asking about.
And defintely, I dont think a wrong word or what have you invalidates the whole thing, it still has value to offer, I just am of the camp of it not being some divine truth. That does not mean, however, that I am against someone else believing it. Hell man, go to town; you may even end up being right.
Kudos for having an open mind and all that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eph, you ARE one of the faithful. You just place your faith differently than I do.
You make huge leaps of faith and then settle back on your haunches and convince yourself you did it “scientifically.”
You have your space genie, bud; you just are too blinded by your faith to see him.
No sarcasm.[/quote]
…just keep telling yourself that friend, whatever helps you sleep at night…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eph, you ARE one of the faithful. You just place your faith differently than I do.
You make huge leaps of faith and then settle back on your haunches and convince yourself you did it “scientifically.”
You have your space genie, bud; you just are too blinded by your faith to see him.
No sarcasm.[/quote]
…just keep telling yourself that friend, whatever helps you sleep at night…
[/quote]
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/
Although its not likely to sway any minds, I thought for posterity it would be good to post this.