-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Mystery Thread Part II
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Depends on your interpretation of the bible. It doesnt necessarilly contradict an allegorical view of the genesis account and the Adam and Eve story.
Though in my view evolution doesnt support an intelligent mover at all, but randomly occurring mutations which add traits through natural selection via non-optimum pathways. Eg unnecessary far placement of optic disc causing blind spots in both eyes, or shared airway/trachea making death by choking more frequent. This makes sense for a non guided process of unit development, but makes little sense with an intelligent hand on the wheel.
Though in my view evolution doesnt support an intelligent mover at all, but randomly occurring mutations which add traits through natural selection via non-optimum pathways. Eg unnecessary far placement of optic disc causing blind spots in both eyes, or shared airway/trachea making death by choking more frequent. This makes sense for a non guided process of unit development, but makes little sense with an intelligent hand on the wheel.
Earthling
David Henson
Exactly my view. It depends upon ones interpretation of the Bible. If ones interpretation of the Genesis account is literal, as mine is, then of course I would believe the Bible over the speculation of science.
Science has no idea how life got here. I can't prove God created the universe and no one else can prove he didn't.
Earthling
David Henson
Sorry if I missed them or didn't answer a question you presented. I have to pick my battles. List all of the questions I didn't answer in a new post in the other thread and I will address them, and answer if I can.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Science does have an idea how life got here. The evidence is accumulating and as it does it continues to confirm what evolution theory predicts. Science is hampered since we lack direct information because it occurred in the past when complex organic molecules would have formed but there is clear evidence on how this could occur. Rejecting this just because we have not resolved all of the issues yet is just a way to say it does not matter what science shows I like the creation story better even though it not supported by anything we know about the world and how life came about. Why not just enjoy what the story tries to teach and avoid the problem that degrades what the story is trying to teach by giving it a meaning it cannot fulfill.
If you want to believe god or a goddess started the world and left it to develop in its own by natural processes that is fine but to reject that the world can be explained by natural processes becomes just believe without evidence.
Skwim
Veteran Member
So what? What does this have to do with evolution? N O T H I N G ! Geeze man,
.
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
If you and I were to sit down and discuss what the Bible says I have no doubt that I know more about what the Bible says about anything than you do so why would I listen to you when you apparently are saying either that the creator didn't create or that the creator's word is null and void just because of some 200 year old questionable theory.
Earthling
David Henson
So what? What does this have to do with evolution? N O T H I N G ! Geeze man,if you're going to talk about evolution at least find out what it is and isn't about.
.
Did I say it did? It has something to do with science.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Actually you do not know how much I know about the bible. You assume because I disagree with it as literal truth that I must not know it. Actually it is because I spent so much time with it that I finally realized it's symbolic nature written for the followers of the Jewish faith.
I am saying everything we know about our world and is comes from the natural world. All else is from our imagination often used when we do not yet understand something in our world. This we have creation stories invented long ago and we have a compelling 200 y/o theory which gets reconfirmed with everything new piece of evidence
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As has already been pointed out, it only contradicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. But then it is easy to show that the Bible is wrong time after time if you rely on taking all of it literally.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And once again you demonstrate that you cannot even follow your literal interpretation of the Bible. When you claim that the theory of evolution is "speculation" you put the burden of proof upon you. This sort of statement of yours tells us time and time again that you do not even understand the basics, the ABC's of science. You could have learned the basics many many times over here if you would only invest a little time in doing so instead of continually showing that you cannot follow the commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbor. Many people misinterpret that Commandment as an order not to lie, but it goes beyond that. If you say something clearly false against your neighbor, even if you believe it, that is bearing false witness. The theory of evolution is not "speculation".
Earthling
David Henson
No I don't. I know an atheist who knows a great deal more than I do about the Bible. Stop assuming. It's because of the things you say, like . . .
You answered your question for this thread yourself. It does not depend on interpretation. The Genesis in in conflict with the science of evolution, and all sciences. The order,and time frame are in conflict with science for starters.
Arguing from ignorance gets you nowhere in any dialogue. The Science of Abiogenesis does have a number of working hypothesis that give an adequate explanation of how life originated. It is a young science with many unanswered question, more is known than you are willing to admit, or as is the case a total lack of knowledge concerning the science involved.
Obvious as the sky is Carolina blue at noon on the 4th of July on a clear day. Not meaningful in this dialogue . Science does NOT remotely attempt to prove nor disprove the existence of God.
Earthling
David Henson
Which, I've asked you several times to do and you haven't.
Personally I see it clashes on one side with a purely literal interpretation of a religious scripture. On the other side it clashes with a purely worldly view of evolution, without considering God.
Regards Tony
Earthling
David Henson
Interesting. I don't think that second part would be relevant in this thread. I could be wrong about that, but nevertheless, just out of curiosity, how does it clash with a "purely worldly view of evolution, without considering God"?
From the way I see it in the religious scriptures is, that the outward world is a reflection of the Spirit. I see we come forth from the Christ Spirit (Holy Spirit).Thus everything our senses can determine in this world can can also explain how creation has come into being.
Thus we could veiw evolution akin to the process of birth of man into this world.
How man takes form in the womb, could reflect our material evolution. At one time we may have swum in a sea. The important thing here is, that it is as a species, Man was always going to be man.
Regards Tony