B
Brad
Guest
You can - but God being supernatural leads to the logical conclusion that we will not fully understand it naturally.
- Status
W
wanerious
Guest
I agree.
B
Brad
Guest
That is because Jesus was using a parable. Genesis makes no claims to be speaking in mythical language. It is written as history. Many want to refute the accounts of Noah, Abraham, and Moses based on the mythical language theory. This has drastic implications for our faith. These covenants were fufilled to every minor detail in the person of Jesus Christ. Refuting them allows someone to believe they were later retro-fitted to fi the person of Christ as Messiah and that perhaps he really wasn’t God but merely a heroic social figure that people wanted to turn into God. There are many reasons why such theories cannot be true, but many will jump on this bandwagon if it suits them - which hurts them and others around them.
In my study of Scripture, it truly would be a greater miracle for someone to write a book with the incredible level of interwoven prophetic fufillment as a fiction story than for Jesus to rise from the dead. This, combined with the fact that nothing in Scripture has been proven false through science or history, leads me to believe that, within the narrative genre, the book is true - and Genesis is mostly historical. I agree that the days of creation could be longer than 24 hour days but I have a hard time with the “proof” science gives of an incredibly old earth and that man was not created man by God. I have a hard time with reconciliation with Scripture AND with the science itself - I’m still in research mode.
W
wanerious
Guest
We shall disagree here.
Well, at least for those whose faith demands that they be literal, historical events.
…and they should be allowed to believe that. Our impression of him does not change the reality of him. We know that by interpreting the spiritual truth of Scripture we identify Jesus as much more than merely human.
I don’t find it particularly harmful. One may still come to the understanding that the true path is that which requires one to love God and treat one’s neighbor as oneself, and it is this which is identified as sufficient a number of times in the NT.
Certainly man could have been created by God. That which sets us apart from the brutes is our eternal soul, and science is silent on this aspect. Evolution only refers to the change of the human body, not the supernatural aspect. Science does not “prove” that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old or that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. It is only through exhaustive research involving many independent fields that these two statements are overwhelmingly likely to be true, to within the modern uncertainties (± 0.1 BY for the Earth, ±0.5 BY for the cosmos). You can choose to not believe them, of course, but your rationality could well be called into question ---- many of the same results that lead us to the above lead also to our modern devices and engineering that we accept (and frankly depend on) without question. The onus would be upon you to mount any serious challenge to quantum theory, physics, and/or astrophysics. I agree with the Pope here. Truth cannot contradict truth, so any apparent contradiction is due to imperfect interpretation of either science or scripture. To me, it is much more likely that a literal scriptural interpretation is erroneous and too limiting rather than our interpretation of modern physics.
B
Brad
Guest
He needs to be identified as God and as the one way to God the Father. You cannot simply believe whatever you want. You are exactly making the case of the dangerous path of putting science above the supernatural.
In order to love someone, you have to know who they are. If you do not know Jesus is God, then you cannot properly love Him. Love is not a feeling - it is a way of living and acting.
The implications of recognizing him as God extend to all the other requirements, such as following the commandments, being moral, and seeking forgiveness for sins. It is not sufficient to simply do good things for your neighbor because you “love” him.
It is not up to me to create a theory to rival quantum theory or physics. Divne Revleation is truth because it has been reavealed to us. There are known holes in these scientific theories. It is up to science to clear up these holes in a rational way - it is not up to science to call someone irrational that does not take their unproven theories to be fact. It is not overwhelmingly likely to be true if there are unexplained assumptions that the results rely on.
Science refuses to consider that which outside the natural. It refuses to consider, for example, that God may have created the Earth “aged”, with rocks that already had certain combinations of atoms so that the rock would measure 3 million years old at the beginning of time.
Faith and reason go together - you cannot use science to reject portions of scripture. You must use scripture to create the parameters of science. That is the only way for truth not to contradict truth.
4
4_marks
Guest
I am not an “anti-evolutionary theory” person. I just know better than to believe that man will ever know all the answers to the mysteries of life through science. Intelligence does not necessarily equal integrity. I also know that dogmatic a priori prejudices against Christian thought and practice permeate much of the scientific and geo-political world of 2005.
W
workinprogress
Guest
I have a tendency to get obnoxious so I’ve stayed off here a while, but maybe Pride has brought me back again.
I say we keep only hard sciences in science classes and leave evolution and intelligent design to philosophy classes. I think that would satisfy everyone who’se reasonable because nobody could get hit over the head with that which is not able to be nationally socialized. I’d prefer intelligent design mixed with microevolution but I might not get it. If either side can’t get whatr they want socialized, noone should. We should just have things like physics, biology, and chemistry taught in science classes with no discussion about how it can be applied to everyday living. There can be a philosophy lab for each to cover those things.
We can have religion classes in addition taught in this country though not necessarily in school, one to teach the religion of scientific materialism and how we can prosylitize that faith and the same for the religion of people with their respective faiths.
I say we keep only hard sciences in science classes and leave evolution and intelligent design to philosophy classes. I think that would satisfy everyone who’se reasonable because nobody could get hit over the head with that which is not able to be nationally socialized. I’d prefer intelligent design mixed with microevolution but I might not get it. If either side can’t get whatr they want socialized, noone should. We should just have things like physics, biology, and chemistry taught in science classes with no discussion about how it can be applied to everyday living. There can be a philosophy lab for each to cover those things.
We can have religion classes in addition taught in this country though not necessarily in school, one to teach the religion of scientific materialism and how we can prosylitize that faith and the same for the religion of people with their respective faiths.
C
CreosMary
Guest
a “theory” is a widespread and annoying misconception. I have seen it appear on this board many times.
Let’s clear this up right now with a few links from a PBS documentary web site and Berkeley:
"Evolving Ideas: Isn’t Evolution Just a Theory?
When we use the word “theory” in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life."
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html
Please view the video that is on the PBS web site. You need either Quicktime or Real Player.
"Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”
Response: Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution."
evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml
Dear Friend,
Theory: Speculation; hypothosis to explain something; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation without a view to practice; an exposition of the general principles of any science…Worlds Standard Dictionary (Australian Edition) 1915.
The most annoying thing about this Hypothosis is you cannot watch or read a single show or article avout nature without the authours / commentators treating Evolution as fact. It isn’t it is still mere speculation. Why don’t the makers of these programmes assume from a stand piont on literal Creation? becuase that would indicate a God, and therefore a set of values and beliefs to be honoured and we cannot have that! The drive behind evolutionary ideology is similar to Marx that is to kill God, ergo faith and hope and a risen Christ
Ciao Bro
W
workinprogress
Guest
I went to the website with the articles. As I said, I wasn’t sure if I should stop coming here and I’m still not, so I haven’t read the articles. I don’t know about the age of the universe but this might be interesting coming from the Church:
The Roman Martyrology for the 25th day of December
In the 5199th year of the creation of the world, from the time when God in thew beginning created the heaven and earth; the 2957th year after the flood; the 2015th year from the birth of Abraham; the 1510th year from Moses, and the going-out of the people of Israel from Egypt; the 1032th year from the annointing of David King; in the 65th week according to the prophecy of Daniel; in the 194th Olympiad; the 752th year from the foundation of the city of Rome; the 42nd year of the rule of Octavian Augustus, all the world being at peace, in the 6th age of the world: Jesus Christ, the eternal God and the Son of the Father, desirous to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, nine months having passed since His conception was born in Bethlehem of Juda, made Man of the Virgin Mary.
The Roman Martyrology for the 25th day of December
In the 5199th year of the creation of the world, from the time when God in thew beginning created the heaven and earth; the 2957th year after the flood; the 2015th year from the birth of Abraham; the 1510th year from Moses, and the going-out of the people of Israel from Egypt; the 1032th year from the annointing of David King; in the 65th week according to the prophecy of Daniel; in the 194th Olympiad; the 752th year from the foundation of the city of Rome; the 42nd year of the rule of Octavian Augustus, all the world being at peace, in the 6th age of the world: Jesus Christ, the eternal God and the Son of the Father, desirous to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, nine months having passed since His conception was born in Bethlehem of Juda, made Man of the Virgin Mary.
D
dcdurel
Guest
"Pope John Paul spoke of “theories of evolution.” Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design."
Dr. Michael Behe.
In other words, God directed evolution Himself, and He could have done it in 6 seconds, 6 days or 6000 years.
Dr. Michael Behe.
In other words, God directed evolution Himself, and He could have done it in 6 seconds, 6 days or 6000 years.
W
wanerious
Guest
Yes, one aspect of Jesus’ character is that he is God incarnate. We are in complete agreement.
And neither is it sufficient to assert problems with the predictions of the above without identifying them. It is possible that your understanding of them is in error.
Science is not calling this someone irrational, I am. What are the holes? Are you certain that they have not been cleared up in a rational way, or is it possible that you are not aware of them? Science has no proven theories, only those that are far more likely to be closer to truth than others. What are the unexplained assumptions and results?
Sure, and God could have created the Universe last Tuesday with manufactured memories of history and reality. He could have created the light from distant stars and galaxies replete with a history of a 14-billion old universe that didn’t exist. If the ruse is that elaborate, perhaps we ought to play along.
You assume the infallibility of your scriptural interpretation. Perhaps that is your bedrock, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that. I assert that our understanding and interpretation of divine revelation can change over time.
W
workinprogress
Guest
I saw the Boston Public episode (which, like many Sunday shows these days, has something or another not morally appropriate for anyone to see or hear–especially on Sunday–and in my weakness in wanting to see how they would handle the controversy, I kept watching) where a principal or someone big in the school was being sued for firing a few teachers who would not teach intelligent design. It seemed they might redo the Scopes trial but the show’s writers were very fair and balanced and disfavored both extremes. The school leader was even not fined after all.
A
AmericanAtheist
Guest
I trust Science over any book that has been modified over and over again. Evolution is the best theory we have. Intelligent Design was just brought up to get our public schools teaching Creationism (and dumbing down the students).
Z
zephel
Guest
Short as that statement is, I dare call it erroneous.
The Bible is not a book “that has been modified over and over again”. One book as it may be, it is a compilation of many documents of which the actual manuscripts and copies of it have been found. The only modification which you could justly say has been made to the Bible is the language used. But nowadays, translation of books is everywhere. The most famous story books like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, etc. have been translated into dozens of other languages. Yet the stories withheld in each translated manuscript still remains the same, uncontorted.
Assuming evolution is true, then I will standby my belief that God directed it. In other words, God created the universe, working His way through what we know as “Darwinism”.
However, I still more strongly that all other theories believe that the universe was created by intelligent design. The universe could not have come out by itself. Something, or someone - that is to say, an intelligent creator - had to give a start to it. Science gives us to answers to how the universe evolved from the Big Bang and onwards, how organisms changed to adapt to their surroundings, and so on. But science does not tell us the answers of what created the Big Bang, what created that mass of matter that caused the Big Bang.
If you heard an explosion out in the sky, you would never imagine of saying, “That explosion happened by itself. Nothing caused it.” Whether it was a man-made or natural explosion, something was there to cause it.
There is much evidence to prove that the universe was created for a purpose - to support life. If certain things on this earth alone were changed slightly, we would not be able to carry out our daily activities much to any effect.
And to quote Darwin himself, “To suppose that the eye, with so many parts all working together…could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
The Bible is not a book “that has been modified over and over again”. One book as it may be, it is a compilation of many documents of which the actual manuscripts and copies of it have been found. The only modification which you could justly say has been made to the Bible is the language used. But nowadays, translation of books is everywhere. The most famous story books like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, etc. have been translated into dozens of other languages. Yet the stories withheld in each translated manuscript still remains the same, uncontorted.
Assuming evolution is true, then I will standby my belief that God directed it. In other words, God created the universe, working His way through what we know as “Darwinism”.
However, I still more strongly that all other theories believe that the universe was created by intelligent design. The universe could not have come out by itself. Something, or someone - that is to say, an intelligent creator - had to give a start to it. Science gives us to answers to how the universe evolved from the Big Bang and onwards, how organisms changed to adapt to their surroundings, and so on. But science does not tell us the answers of what created the Big Bang, what created that mass of matter that caused the Big Bang.
If you heard an explosion out in the sky, you would never imagine of saying, “That explosion happened by itself. Nothing caused it.” Whether it was a man-made or natural explosion, something was there to cause it.
There is much evidence to prove that the universe was created for a purpose - to support life. If certain things on this earth alone were changed slightly, we would not be able to carry out our daily activities much to any effect.
And to quote Darwin himself, “To suppose that the eye, with so many parts all working together…could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
C
Catholic2003
Guest
From the current issue of the Catholic Virginian from the Diocese of Richmond, Catholics can uphold theory of evolution, Bp. DiLorenzo says:
I
Ignatius
Guest
“Evolution is Just a Theory!” Um, yes.
R
rossum
Guest
And to quote the Bible itself: “There is no God.” [Psalm 53:1]
And now shall we look at the Darwin quote in context?
This passage has so often been quoted out of context by creationists that there is a whole article devoted to the creationist misuse of just this one quote here. I am afraid zephel that you are just the latest in a long line of creationist misquoters.
Oh yes, and as I am sure you are aware the full context of the Bible quote I gave above is: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”. Quoting out of context can give a misleading impression. Don’t do it.
rossum
L
Life4Christ
Guest
Actually, the bible does say “There is no God.”, but please read what the entire verse says before you quote it…
Psalm 53:1
1THE [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt and evil are they, and doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.
Psalm 53:1
1THE [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt and evil are they, and doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.
- Status