Creation vs. Evolution (Earth, Eden, genesis, eternal, bible)

[inca]

I have posted the Hebrew words in Genesis (usually Christians don't know anything about it) and evolution and genetic (for the ones who believe both are accurate science, I will say genetics is science, the other is theory disguised as "science") and how do this science can be interpreted in literal way (for the Jews who give so much attention to the metaphysical Hebrew letter of Torah that don't even have time to study the physical !) in case anybody is interested (perhaps Master Hoomer who read my posting about Lillith):
http://www.religiousforums.com/parkw...sc&start=0
http://www.religiousforums.com/parkw...3&start=15

[inca]

I have posted the Hebrew words in Genesis (usually Christians don't know anything about it) and evolution and genetic (for the ones who believe both are accurate science, I will say genetics is science, the other is theory disguised as "science") and how do this science can be interpreted in literal way (for the Jews who give so much attention to the metaphysical Hebrew letter of Torah that don't even have time to study the physical !) in case anybody is interested (perhaps Master Hoomer who read my posting about Lillith):
http://www.religiousforums.com/parkw...sc&start=0
http://www.religiousforums.com/parkw...3&start=15

[inca]

About Big Bang idea, choosing between Moses and Hawkings the discussion went to 9 pages already, the Moderator felt embarrased and hid the 127 replies and views disturbed with the details I was giving until finally I was expelled lacking more arguments; as usual several participants came along and little by little you see since they really didn't investigate beyond the surface they dissapear, vanish gradually until there's someone obstinated enough to defy another in a "mano a mano" struggle. I think you should witness that argument of 9 pages starting with Big Bang and ending in ancient Sumerian and Maya knowledge unacceptable for the defenders of neo-sacred cow called "science". But how many do really have an idea what they talk about?

[inca]

About Big Bang idea, choosing between Moses and Hawkings the discussion went to 9 pages already, the Moderator felt embarrased and hid the 127 replies and views disturbed with the details I was giving until finally I was expelled lacking more arguments; as usual several participants came along and little by little you see since they really didn't investigate beyond the surface they dissapear, vanish gradually until there's someone obstinated enough to defy another in a "mano a mano" struggle. I think you should witness that argument of 9 pages starting with Big Bang and ending in ancient Sumerian and Maya knowledge unacceptable for the defenders of neo-sacred cow called "science". But how many do really have an idea what they talk about?

[inca]

The site is:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...ge=1&pp=15
Then follow the pages if you dare...

[inca]

The site is:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...ge=1&pp=15
Then follow the pages if you dare...

[inca]

BTW, my name is Oscar in that forum.

[inca]

BTW, my name is Oscar in that forum.

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with Death.

There's definitely a defensible argument in saying "I believe God created Man- through evolution". I used to believe that. The problem is, lots of phenomena that were once thought to be the act of God have now been widely accepted as normal occurances in nature, requiring no supernatural intervention- like gravity. No one says "God makes things go down- by using gravity". Still, I agree with Runt- there doesn't have to be a conflict (the Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution- they teach it at my Catholic school).

But to say evolution didn't happen is, well, really kind of laughable nowadays (check out your local museum for fossils on display-including ones of early man). Lots of books have been published trying to "prove" that evolution never happened, but these books are generally not taken seriously by biologists other than a very small percentage of highly religious ones (these books are frighteningly similar to all those books on Holocaust Revisionism).

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with Death.

There's definitely a defensible argument in saying "I believe God created Man- through evolution". I used to believe that. The problem is, lots of phenomena that were once thought to be the act of God have now been widely accepted as normal occurances in nature, requiring no supernatural intervention- like gravity. No one says "God makes things go down- by using gravity". Still, I agree with Runt- there doesn't have to be a conflict (the Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution- they teach it at my Catholic school).

But to say evolution didn't happen is, well, really kind of laughable nowadays (check out your local museum for fossils on display-including ones of early man). Lots of books have been published trying to "prove" that evolution never happened, but these books are generally not taken seriously by biologists other than a very small percentage of highly religious ones (these books are frighteningly similar to all those books on Holocaust Revisionism).