Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one is going to find fault with any movement/organisation/belief, one must find a characteristic or teaching that is integral and essential to that entity- part of its fabric- otherwise one succeeds only in deceiving oneself (or others) in finding apparent fault with it. So one must do some work and find out who is a 'real one', with documentary evidence in support of one's finding.
If it's annoying that one cannot find anything objectionable, yet one still somehow objects, one must practise a little self-examination to see why one finds objection.
They can easily co-exist. The only conflict evolution has is with people who take the Bible literally. You can believe in a creator and evolution as well.
It's funny how some of these Bible literalist try quoting brilliant scientist from centuries ago, as though that somehow validates anything they believe. If they'd bother to join the rest of us in the 21st century, they'd know that any brilliant scientist today accepts evolution as a fact. Most are also atheist, agnostics, or deist.
I'm sure none of that really matters, though. They never have let reality get in their way about anything. Why start now
any brilliant scientist today accepts evolution as a fact. Most are also atheist, agnostics, or deist.
There are probably more people claiming to be born again who are professional evolutionary biologists than there are people claiming to be born again who are engaged in any other academic discipline. And born-again physicists probably come second.
I agree most of the non-whacko denominations, like the United Methodist, the Episcopalians, and the Roman Catholics have long accepted the validity of evolution, dismissing the young earth hypothesis (note the use of hypothesis and not theory) out of hand. So, no one can believe in the god of Abraham and be very much in favor of evolution. Just as long as you don't ascribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Like they say, god's day could be billions of years. (of course that would make god a very young guy )
Like they say, god's day could be billions of years.
They say wrongly. A Gen 1 day really means a day- but not a real day, any more than Bugs Bunny is a real rabbit. It is the concept of rabbit that is important to children of all ages, and the concept of day that is important in Genesis 1.
The error that is made is to think that the Bible has any interest in science or even history. It is a spiritual book only, and the history of this absurd debate illustrates the profound unspirituality of mankind.
They say wrongly. A Gen 1 day really means a day- but not a real day, any more than Bugs Bunny is a real rabbit. It is the concept of rabbit that is important to children of all ages, and the concept of day that is important in Genesis 1.
The error that is made is to think that the Bible has any interest in science or even history. It is a spiritual book only, and the history of this absurd debate illustrates the profound unspirituality of mankind.
Wrong according we atheist, which is hardly the point of the thread. Personally, I don't feel a need to attack theist at EVERY opportunity, most, just not every.
There has never been any conflict of science with Christianity.
Wrong. Christianity has ALWAYS been in conflict with science - along with other silly things like civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all other area of human progress.
Quote:
There has been conflict with false religions, some of which pose as Christianity, yes.
Christianity itself is a false religion, so the distinction is irrelevant.
There has never been any conflict of science with Christianity. There has been conflict with false religions, some of which pose as Christianity, yes. Many skeptics have pretended that there is conflict with Christianity; but then a faith that demands honesty, purity and humility is very liable to be misrepresented by the dishonest, the impure and the proud.
So you would be agreeable to teaching science, specifically evolution, in a religious class?
They say wrongly. A Gen 1 day really means a day- but not a real day, any more than Bugs Bunny is a real rabbit. It is the concept of rabbit that is important to children of all ages, and the concept of day that is important in Genesis 1.
The error that is made is to think that the Bible has any interest in science or even history. It is a spiritual book only, and the history of this absurd debate illustrates the profound unspirituality of mankind.
If I understand your post as you intended it then I really like what you're saying. Your understanding of the word "day" in Genesis is similar to my own. It cannot, by definition, be a "day" in the way we use that word currently, because a day is defined as the length of time it takes for earth to rotate 360 degrees. How can you do something in an earth day when there isn't an earth or sun by which to measure that day?
During the origins of this particular universe, space-time burst into existence (according to inflation theory) within nanoseconds. But the rest of the "creation" process unfolded over billions of years.
I appreciate your comment that the Bible is not about science or history. You're placing it in its proper context. It's a book that was compiled from generations of myths and teachings in order to transmit cultural values, morals, and a sense of purpose. Human beings constantly search for this, whether we do so by studying science or philosophy or through worship or relationships or even through using drugs and alcohol in order to dull the painful self-awareness that plagues many of us as we stumble through the chaos of a world we find difficult to comprehend.
Religion and science can be completely compatible. Science can be used as a basis for generating religion. Religion can be altered to accommodate scientific findings. There is no system of apprehending knowledge that can lay claim to being superior to its competitors. When a person excludes science because it conflicts with his/her religious beliefs, or dismisses spirituality as being contrary to the superiority of Enlightenment rationality, he/she is missing out on a world of possibilities. We're multifaceted organisms with the capacity to experience life from many perspectives, each of which gives us a small taste of what is so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
