Evolution and Creationism (Page 10)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-10-14 7:57 PM in reply to: #3153197 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism tupuppy - 2010-10-14 8:43 PM Mutually exclusive is the discussion at church this weekend. Yes I'll be there to get the church view on this.My smartbutt view is that we were created in God's image, then evolved. There, God is a primate. Of course I also think God has a sense of humor. Depending on how this was handled, this could be a very cool church topic. I am always facinated by those Christians that fight against scientific discovery. My wife once said: "Not being able to see God's hand in science, is putting God in a box, and actually saying he isn't as powerful as we think" She's pretty wise. (And very HOT!!!) I have yet to hear a scientific theory in which I can't see the hand of God. But perhaps I don't fully understand science, and perhaps I'm not a mature Christian. Equally as baffling to me as Christians that fear science, are scientists that seem to fear the prospect of God. It's interesting that there are two distinct diametrically opposed groups, hard core scientists and foundementalist Christians, as at odds on the spectrum that they are, as to answering the question of "Is science and God mutually exclusive?" they would both answer in the affirmative. There are those that cannot see God in Science, and those that cannot see the science in God. Personally, I think both are wrong. |
|
2010-10-14 8:15 PM in reply to: #3153197 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism tupuppy - 2010-10-14 7:43 PM Mutually exclusive is the discussion at church this weekend. Yes I'll be there to get the church view on this.My smartbutt view is that we were created in God's image, then evolved. There, God is a primate. Of course I also think God has a sense of humor. That's a brave pastor! |
2010-10-14 8:27 PM in reply to: #3153231 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Brock Samson - 2010-10-14 8:57 PM tupuppy - 2010-10-14 8:43 PM Mutually exclusive is the discussion at church this weekend. Yes I'll be there to get the church view on this.My smartbutt view is that we were created in God's image, then evolved. There, God is a primate. Of course I also think God has a sense of humor. Depending on how this was handled, this could be a very cool church topic. I am always facinated by those Christians that fight against scientific discovery. My wife once said: "Not being able to see God's hand in science, is putting God in a box, and actually saying he isn't as powerful as we think" She's pretty wise. (And very HOT!!!) I have yet to hear a scientific theory in which I can't see the hand of God. But perhaps I don't fully understand science, and perhaps I'm not a mature Christian. Equally as baffling to me as Christians that fear science, are scientists that seem to fear the prospect of God. It's interesting that there are two distinct diametrically opposed groups, hard core scientists and foundementalist Christians, as at odds on the spectrum that they are, as to answering the question of "Is science and God mutually exclusive?" they would both answer in the affirmative. There are those that cannot see God in Science, and those that cannot see the science in God. Personally, I think both are wrong. As a scientist I do not fear the prospect of God, God is simply extraneous to the equation. The problem is the religious people who get hostile when you tell them you do not believe in their god. I have been told on more that one occasion that I was going to hell because I had the audacity to question things that are part of God's plan. No not all religious people behave that way but many do have a much more subtle bias against atheists. |
2010-10-14 9:01 PM in reply to: #3152661 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism marmadaddy - 2010-10-14 2:27 PM ADMIN NOTE: There are a couple of posts in this thread that have been pointed out to me as being easily construed as disparaging of people of faith and/or their faith itself. Whether they were intended that way or not, from here on in, posts which read this way will be treated as if they are intended in a mocking manner. Fair warning. This has been arguably the most civil discussion I've seen about religion online in years. If people are getting their panties in a bunch over what's being posted in here, they need to toughen up some. |
2010-10-14 9:05 PM in reply to: #3153357 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism JBrashear - 2010-10-14 9:01 PM marmadaddy - 2010-10-14 2:27 PM ADMIN NOTE: There are a couple of posts in this thread that have been pointed out to me as being easily construed as disparaging of people of faith and/or their faith itself. Whether they were intended that way or not, from here on in, posts which read this way will be treated as if they are intended in a mocking manner. Fair warning. This has been arguably the most civil discussion I've seen about religion online in years. If people are getting their panties in a bunch over what's being posted in here, they need to toughen up some. Thou shalt not anger thy BT God Marmahammerbakingsodadaddy. When Marmadaddy stated "Fair Warning", I thought he was jamming to Van Halen. |
2010-10-14 9:13 PM in reply to: #3153231 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Brock Samson - There are those that cannot see God in Science, and those that cannot see the science in God. Very well put. Excellent posts as usual! |
|
2010-10-14 10:33 PM in reply to: #3152625 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Brock Samson - 2010-10-14 3:14 PM ... I've edited out most of your post to ask about a couple things on these points. If you take the bible as a literal history, how do you reconcile all the parts of the old testament where the tribes of Israel are commanded to commit genocide against those already occupying those lands with the idea of a God who loves all? The old testament god is a very vengeful and angry god. Even towards his "chosen people", who tend to be a stiff-necked lot, and keep screwing up, bringin his wrath upon them? The god of the new testament, as described by Jesus, many years after the old testament, is a very different sort of god. Did he change over the millenia? Is this a different god? How does that differ from Allah, who the muslims consider the same god as that of the israelites and the christians, although most christians do not? I was taught in Hebrew School that the post-diluvian parts were a literal history of my people's times. You can remove all the references to god, and read it a the military and social history of a people, who saw god's favor or disfavor as affecting the outcomes of all battles (and everything else). As for issue of atheism being illogical, why is it less logical than a refusal to believe in any of the thousands of other gods people have identified in history? In fact, in the old testament, there are other gods. But god the lord is the god of the israelites, not the only god. There are several periods where the israelites also worship other gods (the most memorable is while Moses is on the mountain, but also after settling in Palestine and splitting up into other territories, which means the centralized nature of the religion begins to fragment (such as worship of Baal). At best, the ancient Israelites were not monotheistic, but henotheistic - worshipping the one god while acknowledging the existence of others. Hence the wording of the first commandment ("I am the lord thy god. Thou shalt not have any gods before me"). Do you believe in the existence of Baal, Nehushtan, Molech, Chemosh? Yet they were all at one time also worshiped? If you don't believe they are real, what makes it harder to understand the position of an atheist, who only believes in one less god than you? (And for the record, I consider myself neither atheist nor agnostic. To me, there is no reason to believe in a divine presence taking a personal interest or view in our day to day activities, or violating the laws of nature. So I consider myself more of a non-deist, if you will). Again, the very different natures of the gods of the old and new testaments could be taken to mean there are two different gods - can you reconcile both the vengeful and loving gods? And I am curious what you mean when you say we are a "judeochristian nation"? What is this supposed to mean? How do you account for the deists and enlightment thinkers that also made up the founders? I believe part of the point of the clear separation of church and state in the early documents is that they were more politically than religiously driven in their actions (rising up against mother England, and starting a new country). I know I am throwing a lot of questions out there, and you did clearly state in the original post (that I edited) that you are not a theologian. Neither am I. But I also am, by nature (probably a result of being a stiff-necked israelite) unable to simply accept things as "well, you just have to have faith". Doesn't work for me in religious issues, didn't work for me in med school when the psychoanalysts tried to convince us about their models with "you'll believe it when you see it", and to mrs gearboy's perpetual annoyance, it doesn't work when she tells me something isn't working until I try it myself. |
2010-10-15 5:45 AM in reply to: #3153508 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism gearboy - 2010-10-14 10:33 PM Brock Samson - 2010-10-14 3:14 PM ... I've edited out most of your post to ask about a couple things on these points. If you take the bible as a literal history, how do you reconcile all the parts of the old testament where the tribes of Israel are commanded to commit genocide against those already occupying those lands with the idea of a God who loves all? The old testament god is a very vengeful and angry god. Even towards his "chosen people", who tend to be a stiff-necked lot, and keep screwing up, bringin his wrath upon them? The god of the new testament, as described by Jesus, many years after the old testament, is a very different sort of god. Did he change over the millenia? Is this a different god? How does that differ from Allah, who the muslims consider the same god as that of the israelites and the christians, although most christians do not? I was taught in Hebrew School that the post-diluvian parts were a literal history of my people's times. You can remove all the references to god, and read it a the military and social history of a people, who saw god's favor or disfavor as affecting the outcomes of all battles (and everything else). As for issue of atheism being illogical, why is it less logical than a refusal to believe in any of the thousands of other gods people have identified in history? In fact, in the old testament, there are other gods. But god the lord is the god of the israelites, not the only god. There are several periods where the israelites also worship other gods (the most memorable is while Moses is on the mountain, but also after settling in Palestine and splitting up into other territories, which means the centralized nature of the religion begins to fragment (such as worship of Baal). At best, the ancient Israelites were not monotheistic, but henotheistic - worshipping the one god while acknowledging the existence of others. Hence the wording of the first commandment ("I am the lord thy god. Thou shalt not have any gods before me"). Do you believe in the existence of Baal, Nehushtan, Molech, Chemosh? Yet they were all at one time also worshiped? If you don't believe they are real, what makes it harder to understand the position of an atheist, who only believes in one less god than you? (And for the record, I consider myself neither atheist nor agnostic. To me, there is no reason to believe in a divine presence taking a personal interest or view in our day to day activities, or violating the laws of nature. So I consider myself more of a non-deist, if you will). Again, the very different natures of the gods of the old and new testaments could be taken to mean there are two different gods - can you reconcile both the vengeful and loving gods? And I am curious what you mean when you say we are a "judeochristian nation"? What is this supposed to mean? How do you account for the deists and enlightment thinkers that also made up the founders? I believe part of the point of the clear separation of church and state in the early documents is that they were more politically than religiously driven in their actions (rising up against mother England, and starting a new country). I know I am throwing a lot of questions out there, and you did clearly state in the original post (that I edited) that you are not a theologian. Neither am I. But I also am, by nature (probably a result of being a stiff-necked israelite) unable to simply accept things as "well, you just have to have faith". Doesn't work for me in religious issues, didn't work for me in med school when the psychoanalysts tried to convince us about their models with "you'll believe it when you see it", and to mrs gearboy's perpetual annoyance, it doesn't work when she tells me something isn't working until I try it myself. Brock Samsom, I'm lazy this morning, so I'm replying to Gearboy to address some of the same questions he had: I understand your sentiment that atheism seems illogical, but after many years of searching, I've come to the point where it is the only logical conclusion to come to. I will agree that before the universe first began, there is most likely some force that initiated the events that resulted in what we see today. Something out of nothing makes no sense. But after that moment, there has been absolutely no evidence of any form of diety or interference from any form of outside force. What there has been, are countless different religions and gods that have been created solely by mans imagination in order to answer questions that been beyond our current understanding. As our understanding grows, we humans have history of changing up our religions to accommodate the new knowledge. Christianity is a more recent example of that, and it is a heavily borrowed story from Greek mythology. From an objective unbiased standpoint, Christianity is a very poor candidate for being a original or true message. Anyway, I know that based on the complete lack of current evidence or interference from an outside force, I will never have a final answer on this topic until I'm dead. My conclusion is that this is in effect a lack of any sort of god. If there is or isn't, it's completely irrelevant to my life. Second issue is the statement that this is a judeo-christian nation. I have a big problem with that assertion. I can understanding stating that we're a predominately judeo-christian nation, but not that that belief system is integral to our country and should be considered with how it's governed. That's akin to stating that we are a Caucasian nation. No, we're a diverse nation, but the majority of people are Caucasian. Big difference. I am as much of an American as you and I will not be part of a nation that considers identifies itself with a specific religion. I would rather be part of an oppressive dictatorship than have a governing system like that. Do you actually think it's okay to actually make the statement that a very large portion of this country, people who are just as much Americans as you, are really outsiders in their homeland? Sounds exactly like what the founding fathers wanted... Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I've wanted to respond for a while(and to a few other items), but just haven't had time! |
2010-10-15 10:26 AM in reply to: #3147876 |
Veteran 266 Cincinnati | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism So as not to bias my answer, I have not read a single post before posting my reply. As simply as possible: I believe God caused the Big Bang and from then on, it happened the way Darwin said. |
2010-10-15 10:47 AM in reply to: #3153357 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism JBrashear - 2010-10-14 9:01 PM marmadaddy - 2010-10-14 2:27 PM ADMIN NOTE: There are a couple of posts in this thread that have been pointed out to me as being easily construed as disparaging of people of faith and/or their faith itself. Whether they were intended that way or not, from here on in, posts which read this way will be treated as if they are intended in a mocking manner. Fair warning. This has been arguably the most civil discussion I've seen about religion online in years. If people are getting their panties in a bunch over what's being posted in here, they need to toughen up some. ^ THIS! |
|